TMI Blog1983 (11) TMI 298X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lting) were correctly classifiable under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff and not under Item 22 as held by the Assistant Collector. 2. These appeals first came up for hearing on 10-10-1983, alongwith the appeal filed by M/s. Multiple Fabrics Co. (P) Ltd. (the respondents in the present matter) against an order passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta vide Order-in-Original No. 203(22) 80/Collector-16/83, dated 1-2-1983. At the request of the respondents in these cases, the hearing was adjourned to enable them to file cross-objections. It was also brought to the notice of Shri Tayal, Departmental Representative, that the two appeals appeared to have been filed after the period of limitation prescribed in Section 35B(3), of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as the appellant. According to Shri Banerjee, a certain amount was due to the respondents as refund arising out of the orders under appeal. Since the Department had not approached the Tribunal for a stay in this regard, their appeals should not be admitted. 5. We pointed out to Shri Banerjee that Section 35F did not appear to apply when the appeal was made on behalf of the Department. The section itself refers to any duty demanded in respect of goods which are not under the control of central excise authorities or any penalty levied under this Act . There is no question of any penalty under the Act or the Rules having been levied on the central excise authorities, nor of any duty being demanded from them. Again, the section goes on to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gainst the appellant in this case, namely the Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta. The manufacturer is the same, the product is the same and the question for consideration is also the same, namely, whether the product was classifiable under Item 22(3) or under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. Both sides therefore adopted the arguments respectively advanced by them in Appeal No. ED (SB) 1255/83-D. 8. In Order No. 745/1983-D, dated 24-11-1983, we have considered this issue in detail and have held that the goods in question were correctly classifiable under Item 68. Following our decision in that case, we hold that the decisions of the Collector (Appeals) in the two orders which are the subject matters of the present appeals were cor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|