9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (11) TMI 430X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssues involved in all these appeals are common, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The facts are not much in dispute. The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of agricultural knives and soil levellers. They filed declaration under Rule 173B claiming exemption from payment of duty under Notification 64/86-C.E., dated 10-2-86 as amended by Notification 196/86, dated 14-3-86 by claiming the classification under Chapter Headings 84.33 and 84.32 as parts of the machines falling under these Headings. But the Department proposed classification of these goods under Chapter Heading 82 of the CETA. They were served with various show cause notices for the periods in dispute from July, 1996 to March, 2000. The adjudicating ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of these goods under Chapter sub-heading 8208.00 of the CETA, while the respondents wanted the classification under sub-heading 84.33 in order to claim the benefit of the exemption Notification No. 56/95, dated 16-3-95. The adjudicating authority at that time also accepted the classification proposed by the Department through Order-in-Original Nos. 43-44/97. But the same was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 18-2-98 by holding the classification under sub-heading 84.33 as parts of machines/machinery of the said sub-heading. This order has attained finality as the same had not been challenged before the Tribunal by the Department and as such is binding on the Department. 5. We also find that in the above said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssification of the goods in question under Chapter Headings 84.32 and 84.33 of the CETA as parts of machines falling under these Headings. Similar view has been taken by the Tribunal in CCE, Ludhiana v. Nalanda Spinners & Others - 2003 (57) RLT 909 wherein the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) on the classification of the yarn manufactured by the respondents therein was not challenged by the Department and it was observed that the said order could not be ignored and different classification could not be claimed by the Department for the subsequent periods. 6. In view of the discussion made above, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the same is upheld in all the appeals. The ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
