TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 989X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant. - E/1925/2006 & E/CO-422/2006 - A/86113-86114/17-EB - Dated:- 28-2-2017 - Shri Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) Shri C J Mathew, Member (Technical) Appearance: Shri Ajay Kumar, Jt. Commissioner (AR) for the appellant None for the respondent Order Per: C J Mathew: Issue in dispute is the classification of C-4 raffinate (return stream) with duty implication of ₹ 94,87,425 for the period from March 2000 to June 2001 in show cause notice dated 9th January 2002. Proceedings were initiated against appellant for failure to file classification list under rule 173B of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The impugned order held that the return stream product was not an input or partially processed input but a pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y their principal for years considering that the input remained unchanged. 3. The classification claimed by noticee falls within the heading liquefied petroleum gases and other gaseous hydrocarbons . The contention in notice is that the product contains 83% of butylenes and is therefore classifiable under 2711.12. 4. It is also claimed that even if the goods are classifiable in 2711.12, it is exempt under notification no. 6/2000-CE dated 1st March 2000 at serial no. 24 and at serial no. 34 of notification no. 3/2001-CE dated 1st March 2001 by adverting that the exception to the exemption is limited to natural gas. 5. The impugned order also takes note of submission of M/s Indian Petrochemical Corporation Ltd (IPCL) that the disput ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rought into these proceedings against M/s Maharashtra Polubutylenes Ltd. It is also contended that the decision supra has been challenged before the Hon ble Supreme Court and, relying on the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in West Coast Paper Mills [2004 (164) ELT 375 (SC)], holding that an appeal entertained by the Supreme Court would jeopardise the judgements of High Courts or the Tribunal. 8. Heard Learned Authorized Representative. None appeared for assessee. 9. The legality of the impugned order, based, as it is, on a decision that is in jeopardy as elaborated above, is in question before us. We find that the original authority has followed the decision of the Tribunal in classification of C-4 raffinate. Nothing could ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in any manner. The appeal itself is without any challenge to the legality and propriety of the impugned order. 11. We must also note that the adjudicating authority, conscious of the specific terms of the remand on the occasion of the former hearing in this very matter, did consider the final decision in the classification and complied thus with our earlier order. 12. It would appear that the reviewing authority had not familiarised themselves with the terms of the remand and, in ignorance thereof, seeks a prayer which runs counter to our own directions. Obviously, the committee comprising of senior functionaries are not cognizant of the principles governing appropriate remedy. 13. In view of the absence of any contention in relati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
