TMI Blog2005 (4) TMI 524X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.S. Bajaj, Member (J)].- In this appeal, the appellants had disputed the correctness of the impugned order vide which the duty in respect of the waste of the glass wool had been confirmed against them. 2. Ld. Counsel has contended that the waste of glass wool does not find mention in the Tariff under any heading or sub-heading and as such is not e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e sides and gone through the record. We find that in the appellant s own case, which is reported in 2000 (121) E.L.T. 633, this plea of the appellants that the waste of the glass wool is not excisable, was not accepted by the Tribunal and the same was held to be excisable. The argument of the ld. Counsel that the said judgment of the Tribunal, is not binding on the appellants, as it is based on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... waste to be excisable, cannot be accepted in the present proceedings, as in the earlier case, in which the statement was relied upon and concluded that the waste is excisable, by the Tribunal, has already attained the finality, as they did challenge the same before the higher forum. 6. In view of the above, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order and the same is upheld. The appeal of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
