2005 (4) TMI 499

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , for the Appellant. Shri H. Gupta, DR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Moheb Ali M., Member (T)]. - The above appeals were taken up together for disposal as the issue is common. Appeal E/l477/99 is filed by M/s. L.D. Textiles Industries Ltd. and Appeal E/1410/2000 is filed by the Revenue. Both the appeals are filed against the orders passed by Commissioner (Appeals), albeit by two different .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... (113) E.L.T. 353 (S.C.)]. The Apex Court in the above said decision held that any demand raised in pursuance of a revised classification order would be only prospective. The Revenue's contention is that the Commissioner's reliance on this order of the Supreme Court is misplaced in view of the fact that the Finance Bill, 2000 provided validation of certain actions taken under Section 11A of Act 1 o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... dispute arose out of the classification of the goods manufactured by the appellant, L.D. Textiles Inds. Ltd. While deciding this matter, one Commissioner (Appeals) held that the goods are classifiable under Chapter Heading 55.05 whereas the other has remanded the matter with the above mentioned directions. The appellant, L.D. Textiles Inds. Ltd., argued that the decision of the Commissioner (Appe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X