1998 (4) TMI 239

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....997. 2. M/s. Woodburn Chemicals (P) Ltd. were called upon to show cause why duty should not be demanded from them for removal of excisable goods without payment of appropriate duty of excise and why penalty should not be imposed on them for contravention of Rules 9(1), 173F and 173G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Rule 173Q. 3. M/s. Woodburn Chemicals (P) Ltd. are engaged in the manufacture of basic Chromium Sulphate and Sodium Sulphate falling under Chapter Heading 2833.00. M/s. S.C. Manufacturers (SCM) and M/s. Sphenex Industries (SII) are also engaged in the manufacture of the same items. All the three units were operating from adjoining plots in industrial area at Unnao. Shri D.S. Sodhi, the other applicant f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he applicants had been approved by the Asstt. Collector. Once the classification list was accepted by the proper officer, no demand could be made or confirmed or penalty imposed unless the classification list containing the declaration had been revoked by a subsequent order. He relied on the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Bhiwani Textile Mills as reported in 1996 (88) E.L.T. 639 and the Tribunal decision in the case of Sun Beam Engineering Works v. CCE as reported in 1997 (96) E.L.T. 714 in support. He also pleaded financial hardship on the part of the applicants and referred to the balance sheet of the three units filed along with the stay application. 4. Shri Sanjeev Srivastava, ld. JDR opposing the stay application....