TMI Blog2005 (1) TMI 705X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he original authority confirmed the above position in his Order dated 17.11.2000. The appellant approached this Tribunal, which remanded the case to the original authority for re-consideration by observing the principles of natural justice. In the de novo order, which is impugned in the present appeal, the adjudicating authority held that the goods are classifiable as Sewing Thread (CSH 5401) and demanded duty of ₹ 73,03,216/ - under proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Equal penalty under Section 11 AC has been imposed. Interest under Section 11AB has been demanded. A penalty of ₹ 10,00,000/- has been imposed on Shri Deepak Ganeriwala, Director of the appellant unit under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent initiated proceedings for the period from March 1995 to February 1997 in respect of Nylon Fishnet Twine falling under Chapter Sub heading 5607.90, even after 16.03.1995, when Note 12 (A) to Section XI of the Central Excise Tariff Act prescribed a condition of more than 9000 deniers and sought to deny only the benefit of the Notification on the ground that the raw material had suffered the duty at 'Nil' rate. The proceedings were dropped. The present proceedings initiated vide Show Cause Notice dated 22.07.1999, which seeks to demand duty for the period from March 1995 to March 1999, cannot seek to reopen the classification of the product since the principle of Constructive Res Judicata would apply. In a situation, where the auth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Notices. As contended by the learned Advocate, the Adjudication Order is contrary to the settled law on the subject as decided in the following cases. a. Hindustan Polymers Co. Ltd. vs. CCE - 1999 (106) ELT 12 (SC) b. Warner Hindustan Ltd. vs. CCE - 1999 (34) KIT 595 (SC)-1999 (113) ELT 24 (SC) c. Sharp Batteries and Allied Ind. P. Ltd. vs. CCE - 2002 (51) RLT 985 (CEGAT-Mum.)=2002 (145) ELT 611 d. CCE, Meerut-ll vs. Beltek Canadian Water Ltd. - 2000 (41) KLT 778 (CEGAT)=2001 (130) ELT 657 e. Comteck Laboratories vs. CCE, Mumbai - 2003 (256) ELT 966 We also find that in all the documents, the appellant has indicated that the impugned goods are Twine. In view of this, it is very difficult to sustain the charge of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
