TMI Blog1996 (4) TMI 236X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n K. Dhar, Member (T)]. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. F. No. V-2 (14E) 348/R/88 of Collector (Appeals), Bombay. 2. The issue relates to classification of Sulphacetamide Eye Drops B.P.L. 20%. 3. Arguing for the appellants the Ld. Advocate submits that in the Show Cause Notice issued to them the department had proposed to classify the impugned product under sub-headi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its and as per Note 3 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 effective from 28-2-1986 the first aid boxes and kits are classifiable under sub-heading 3005.00 and chargeable to duty at 15% ad valorem. Though the impugned product is a pharmacopoeial product since it has been packed in Medicine Kits it would be classifiable only under sub-heading 3005.00. 4. Collector (Appeals) has held that if ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lassification under sub-heading 3005.00 was never the subject matter of proceedings at the original stage. Show Cause Notice was issued only for classification under 3003.19 and Deputy Collector accepted their claim of classification under sub-heading 3003.20. They were never put to notice in regard to classification under sub-heading 3005 and, therefore, could not defend their claim against such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under 3003.20. It is only through Review Order issued under Section 35E(2) that Revenue for the first time proposed classification under Tariff Heading 3005.00. We find that the appellants were never put to notice in regard to proposed classification. In the circumstances, Collector (Appeals) could not have possibly decided the impugned products under that tariff heading since no notice in regard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
