TMI Blog2005 (3) TMI 164X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Assistant Commissioner. 2. The petitioner, a Private Limited Company is engaged in the business of manufacturing Domestic Flour Mills popularly known as "Gharghanti". 3. Various show cause notices had been issued demanding duty from the petitioner company on the ground that Gharghanti was classifiable under Heading No. 85.09 of the Tariff. 4. The Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) had, by its decision dated 15-4-1994, rendered in the case of Messrs Workwell Engineering [1994 (72) E.L.T. 222 (Tribunal)], held that Gharghanti was classifiable under Heading No. 85.09 of the Tariff. It appears that thereafter several representations were made before the Central Board for Excise and Customs (CBEC), pursuant to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctional Commissioner directed the Assistant Commissioner to prefer appeals against the aforesaid two Orders in Original dated 14-6-1996 under Section 35E(2) read with Section 35E(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 before the second respondent on the ground that the Circular dated 5-12-1994 issued by the Board was contrary to the decision of the CEGAT in the case of Messrs Workwell Engineering and therefore, the Circular was not acceptable, the Circular was not binding on the quasi judicial authority and therefore the Assistant Commissioner should not have followed the same and that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had dismissed the appeal preferred by Messrs Workwell Engineering against the order of CEGAT and that therefore, the Assistant Commissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the date of manufacture of the product cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the same was not an issue and once the proceedings were pending, and the Circular of 5th December, 1994 had superseded all earlier directions, on the date when the adjudication was to take place, it had to take place in light of the Circular in existence viz. Circular dated 5th December, 1994 as that was the only Circular effective on the date when respondent No. 2 decided the issue. The aforesaid decision in case of Paper Products Ltd. (supra) on which reliance has been placed by respondent No. 2 as well as in affidavit-in-reply instead of assisting the revenue supports the case of the petitioner. The Apex Court has taken cognizance of the fact that as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
