TMI Blog2005 (4) TMI 71X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal should have followed the decision of the Gujarat High Court and affirmed that the appellant's goods were not classifiable under Tariff Heading 8509. However, the Tribunal relied upon the decision of this Court in Nat Steel Equipment Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise reported in [1988 (1) TMI 38 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] and held that the machines were properly classifiable as a domestic appliance under Tariff Heading 8509. It is not for us to question the correctness of the earlier decision of the Tribunal since the appeal therefrom has already been dismissed by this Court. Nevertheless, we can certainly hold, as we do, that the advent of the Circular in 5-12-1994, after the earlier decision was rendered, was a relevant fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by this Court. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has stated that the order of dismissal simply recorded that the appeal was dismissed without any reason in support thereof. 4.The grievance of the appellant is that the Tribunal erred in relying upon its earlier decision in view of the fact that the earlier decision had been rendered prior to the issuance of a Circular by the Central Board of Excise and Customs on 5-12-1994 in which it had been clarified that : "The Board has examined the matter in depth. As per HSN explanatory Note to Heading 84.37 various kinds of machinery used in the milling industry for the working of cereal of dried leguminous vegetables have been specified. In group III at (page No. 1221 of HSN) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cision of this Court in Nat Steel Equipment Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise reported in 1988 (34) E.L.T. 8 and held that the machines were properly classifiable as a domestic appliance under Tariff Heading 8509. It is not for us to question the correctness of the earlier decision of the Tribunal since the appeal therefrom has already been dismissed by this Court. Nevertheless, we can certainly hold, as we do, that the advent of the Circular in 5-12-1994, after the earlier decision was rendered, was a relevant factor which should have been considered by the Tribunal untrammeled by the earlier decision rendered by the Tribunal. Furthermore, it may be noted that the Revenue ought to have considered the issue of classification on the b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
