TMI Blog1999 (4) TMI 278X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... President]. Matter called. None for the respondents despite notice of hearing having been issued by the Registry on 18-2-1999 by registered post. Accordingly, we have heard the learned JDR, Shri V.M. Udhoji for the Revenue in its appeal. 2. Briefly stated facts of this case are as follows :- 2.1 Respondents herein filed a classification list bearing No. 12/89 w.e.f. 1-4-1989 claiming ben ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vide exemption Notification No. 253/82, dated 8-12-1982. 3. We are unable to understand as to how such large scale amendments not only in the classification of goods but also in the description could be made by the Revenue without putting the appellants to notice. It is for this reason that the appellants had submitted before the lower appellate authority that they were not given an opportunity ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re not independent of one another. It was also pointed out that in respect of a similarly situated processor, namely M/s. Mahesh Textile Processors Pvt. Ltd. classification list was approved in that case without any amendment. 4. The lower appellate authority has held that there can be two types of receipts of cotton fabrics by the respondents herein for stentering - (1) from those who are ava ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dgment of Madras High Court in respect of S. Sornam v. Inspector of Central Excise, Siva [1982 (10) E.L.T. 49 (Mad.)]. 5. While we agree with the first contention of the respondents that the amendments in the classification list should not have been made by the Assistant Collector on his own even to the extent of changing the description of the goods and that the respondents were entitled to a p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quantity cleared by the respondents will not be taken into account in computing the aggregate quantity of 50,00,000 sq. mtrs. Consequently, we are of the view that the impugned order deserves to be set aside. We order accordingly. However, at the same time we direct the adjudicating officer to decide the case de novo in the light of violation of principles of natural justice made by him while appr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
