9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (12) TMI 468X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... J.B. Mishra, for the Respondent. [Order]. - P.C. : Heard the learned counsel for the Appellant and the learned counsel for the Respondent. Perused the Appeal. 2. The Appeal is admitted on the following substantial question of law :- "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in directing the Appellants to deposit Rs. 15,00,000/- under Sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the CESTAT with the Application for Stay. By the impugned order dated 29th July 2010, the CESTAT directed the Appellant to deposit Rs.15,00,000/- inter alia on the ground that the appellant itself has claimed that the classification upheld by the CESTAT in the case of Caprihans India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise. Aurangabad reported in 2002 (145) E.L.T. 664 (Tri-Mumbai) which is upheld b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e order of the Apex Court confirming the said order was also available and it was open to the commissioner to classify the goods under Tariff Heading 3916. However, the Commissioner of Central Excise has chosen to classify the goods under Tariff Heading 3920.39. The question before the Tribunal was, whether the Commissioner was justified in classifying the goods under Tariff Heading 3920.39 in spi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de by the Commissioner was contrary to the binding decision of the Tribunal in the case of Caprihans India Ltd. (supra).
7. In this view of the matter, the impugned order is quashed and set aside and the CESTAT is directed to hear the appeal of the Appellant on merits without any pre-deposit. This Appeal is disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
