TMI Blog2005 (5) TMI 86X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ollector of Central Excise by his order dated March 25, 1986 had classified these goods under Chapter heading 4009.92 of the Central Excise Tariff. On appeal filed by the petitioners, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) by his order dated March 14, 1988 held that the said goods are classifiable under Chapter Heading 4009.99 of the Central Excise Tariff as claimed by the petitioners and not under Chapter Heading 4009.92 of the Central Excise Tariff as decided by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise. The Revenue filed further appeal against the said order before the CEGAT, but the same was dismissed on the ground of delay in filing the appeal. It is not in dispute that the respondents have accepted the said classification and have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... echa the classification of the goods upheld by the appellate authority is binding on the lower authorities and the judicial discipline demands that the order of the appellate authority must be scrupulously followed by the lower authorities unless there has been change in law or facts. In this connection, Mr. Sanklecha relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Kamalakshi Finance [1991 (55) E.L.T. 433], two decisions of this Court in the case of Camlin Private Limited v. Union of India [1982 (10) E.L.T. 1] and the decision in the case of Prakash Construction and Engineering Company v. Union of India [1991 (56) E.L.T. 58 (Bom.)]. 5 Mr. A.S. Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, howe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctor (Appeals). The technical literature like Encyclopedia of Sciences and Technology, Vol. I of McGraw Hill Publications cannot be said to be additional material, because, these materials are general in nature and do not pertain to the goods manufactured by the petitioners. Moreover, these materials were available even at the time when order-in-appeal were passed by the Collector (Appeals). The fact that there materials have not been specifically set out in the appellate order, it does not mean that the goods manufactured by the petitioners are liable to be classified as per the technical literature. Therefore, the Assistant Collector was clearly in error in holding that the decision of the Collector (Appeals) would be binding only for tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
