2001 (3) TMI 145

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 1997 whereunder the Commissioner of Central Excise Customs, Guntur demanded duty of about Rs. 26 lakhs from the appellants and imposed penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs on them. Appellants are manufacturers of betel nut powder. Duty demand took place on the basis that betel nut powder is liable to Central Excise duty under tariff item No. 2106.90 of the CET. 2. Learned Counsel representing the appellants .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... peals) in the appellants' own case where he had held that the appellants' product i.e. betel nut powder cannot be classified under tariff item 2106.90. The learned Counsel submitted that the period involved in the present dispute is between 1-3-1994 and 31-3-1994 during which time, betel nut powder was not included as item liable to Central Excise duty in the Tariff Act. Betel nut powder became ex .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... eply to the show cause notice. Thus, the proceedings in the present case revolved around the issue of correct classification of Betel nut powder, though no finding has been recorded by the Commissioner in this regard. It is now clear from the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court (supra) as well as the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) in the appellants' own case that betel nut powder was .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X