TMI Blog2004 (4) TMI 76X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by inference when there were specific decisions of not only the Tribunal but of this Court as well in respect of the commodity in question. Besides the trade notice was binding on the Revenue. It was not contrary to any decision of this Court but in keeping with the decision of this Court in Multiple Fabrics Co. (P) Ltd. [1987 (4) TMI 75 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] - Taking into consideration the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... then stood) (referred to as 'the Act') for the period 1-5-81 to 28-2-86. 2.The appellant has made the following submissions; (i) the Department had wrongly classified the conveyor belts manufactured by the appellant under Tariff Item 19(III) instead of Tariff Item 68 of the Act. The language of the Tariff Item 19(III) clearly shows that it applied only to fabrics treated with natural a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tiple Fabrics Co. P. Ltd., Calcutta v. Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta, 1984 (16) E.L.T. 301, and the decision of this Court in Collector of Central Excise Calcutta v. Multiple Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. etc. - 1987 (29) E.L.T. 481. (iii) The Central Board of Excise and Customs had issued a tariff advice on 3-11-80 in connection with the "plastic coated PVC impregnated conveyor beltings" by w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hod by which products such as conveyor belts PVC impregnated were to be classified and applying that method the commodity manufactured by the appellant comes only under Tariff Item 19(III). It is further submitted that the Tariff Advice had been issued prior to the introduction of Section 37(B) in the Act and, therefore, would not bind the Revenue insofar as it was contrary to the decision of this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
