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

....on 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 the appellants, Shri Gopal Prasad, learne....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....aised 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 applicable to the facts of this case. In that case, ....