2010 (3) TMI 425

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n of three products, namely Emdilith, Mahacol and Emditex. The lower appellate authority has classified all these products, for the periods covered by the relevant classification declarations (Nos. 5/2000-01 dated 13-10-2000, 6/2000-01 dated 16-11-2000, 7/2000-01 dated 27-11-2000, 8/2000-01 dated 23-1-2001 and 9/2000-01 dated 19-3-2001) under SH 3905.10 of the CETA Schedule as claimed by the assessee. According to the Revenue, the first two products are classifiable under SH 3506.00 as decided by the original authority. Hence the present appeal. 3. Learned JDR has given us the necessary account of the history of this case, which, we find, is relevant to the aforesaid issue. Way back in 1990, the assessee wanted the above products to be c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... novo adjudication. Obviously, what was remanded was finalisation of provisional assessments for the period 1993-95. When, pursuant to the remand, the Deputy Commissioner insisted on bank guarantee under Rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the assessee once again approached the appellate authority, which granted relief to the appellant by dispensing with bank guarantee vide order-in-appeal dated 18-8-2001. Meanwhile, the aforesaid classification declarations filed by the assessee came to be considered by the Deputy Commissioner and the three products were classified under SH 3506.00 (Emdilith and Mahacol) and SH 3905.10 (Emditex). It was this decision of the Deputy Commissioner which was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) in rela....