1993 (4) TMI 154

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2. These two appeals involve common issues and, therefore, they are clubbed together and are being disposed of by this common order. 3. The dispute relates to classification of the product, namely, Hose Assembly, manufactured by the appellants. 4. In the impugned order, the Collector (Appeals) following the ratio of the decision in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore v. Aerolex Hose Pvt. Ltd. reported in 1989 (39) E.L.T. 681, held that the order dated 30-11-1988 of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Jamshedpur approving the classification of product 'Hose Assembly' under S.H. No. 8431.00 was not correct. He held that item in question is specifically covered by S.H. No. 4009.92 of the Tariff. 5. Arguing for ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....or the Revenue submitted that first issue raised by the appellants' Counsel is not tenable in view of the fact that there is no bar for the quasi-judicial Authority to take a different view from the earlier view following the decisions of the higher Forum. Since the Tribunal has taken the view that this item in question would be appropriately classifiable under Heading 40.09. Based upon that view the Collector directed the Assistant Collector to file an appeal before the Collector (Appeals) against the approval of the classification. He said that in the present case period is different and demand is not consequent of the earlier order and decison cited by the appellants' Counsel in the case of Baroda Rayon Corporation Ltd., is not applicabl....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....wing the ratio of the decision of the Tribunal the Administrative Collector has directed to file an appeal against the order of approval of the classification and on appeal the Collector (Appeals) has taken a view following the decision of the Tribunal. In our view, this does not amount to review and the Collector (Appeals) was just right in entertaining the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal fails on the first issue. 8. On the issue of classification whether the item in question is classifiable under Heading 8431.00 as claimed by the appellants or it was held by the Department that this was classifiable under Heading 4009.92. We observe that Heading 40.09 refers to Hose assembly other than hardened rubber and in this case, whether the prod....