1997 (7) TMI 229

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Learned DR stated that in this case, the main issue involved is the determination of the classification of the appellants' product. They purchase paper from the market and subject it to processing and converting it into continuous computer stationery, which was considered by the Department initially as classifiable under Heading 4823.90. However, the Board had occasion to examine the matter and issue a Circular No. 11/91-Cx.4, dated 15-10-1991 by which the issue regarding the dispute regarding classification has since been resolved. The rival entries were 48.20 and 48.23 and the Board has held it to be classifiable under 48.20 and eligible for exemption under Notification 43/86. 5. Therefore, in so far as the classification d....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ereafter nothing was communicated to the appellants. 8. Thereafter, the Nagpur Collectorate issued a Circular No. 1/C-H/48/8-1/88-C.Ex., dated 21-11-1990 stating that the computer stationery would not be covered under Heading 48.20 but more appropriately classifiable under 48.23. On seeing the above, the appellants applied for Licence in the month of December, 1990. But surprisingly, a squad of Preventive Officers visited the office premises and obtained the figures and also obtained statements and subsequently a show cause notice was issued. They replied to the show cause notice to the Additional Collector who while decided the case was satisfied that the Department as well as all the printers had doubt with regard to the classific....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....st be proved and since there is no mens rea, therefore, the order of penalty deserves to be set aside. 10. We have considered the above submissions. We observe that while the appellants had intially questioned the excisability before the Department, they appear to have given it up at the appeal stage as evident from the contents of the appeal memorandum, and the main dispute related to the classification of the product and even this dispute regarding 48.20 vs. 48.23 now stands resolved between the parties in view of the Ministry's Circular 11/91-CX. 4, dated 15-10-1991 which has been referred to by the learned DR on the basis of the Assistant Collector's communication to him and filed before us. 11. We also observe that Head....