1994 (10) TMI 155

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ree appeals relate to the same issue and the same period only the amounts involved are different. 3. All the three appellants have filed Stay Applications in the matter. 4. It was their contention that they are manufacturers of rubber products of various shapes classifiable under Chapter 40. 5. Initially all of them had filed the classification list under Heading 4016.99 and also claimed benefit of Notification No. 175/86 and these classification lists had been duly approved by the proper officer and the goods were accordingly cleared on payment of duty as indicated therein. 6. Subsequently, however, department was of the view that this classification was erroneous and the goods were required to be classified under 40.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....are chargeable to nil rate of duty or which are exempted from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon by any other notification shall not be taken into account. Therefore for the relevant period the quantity which was admittedly of non-cellular type was required to be taken into account and this being chargeable to nil rate of duty the value thereof was required to be excluded for the purpose of extending the benefit of this notification. In other words the value of the cellular type alone was required to be taken into account and it is less than the limit prescribed for extending the benefit of exemption both under Notification 175/86 as well as 1/93. 12. The department itself has restricted the demand to a period of six m....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....classification of goods as mentioned in the classification list effective from 1-4-1993 and approved by the A.C. there was no dispute. 18. We have considered the above submissions. We observe that in view of the above submissions it is apparent that as on date there is neither any dispute on facts nor on law and the submissions made by Ld. Counsel boil down to only a request for direction to the officers for considering the consequential relief flowing from his own decision. In the circumstances the appellants have not only a prima facie good case but the case is entirely in their favour in so far as the question of consequential relief was concerned. Therefore we enquired from both the sides if simultaneously the main appeals thems....