1998 (3) TMI 383

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of duty for the period July 1988 to November 1992 to the tune of Rs. 41,59,021.89 as demanded by show-cause notice dated 30-7-1993 is barred by time or not. 3. Further question involved is whether the penalty of Rs. 4 lakhs imposed on the appellants herein is liable to be sustained or not. 4. Ld. Consultant, Shri B.N. Chattopadhyay submits that the issue whether the aluminium water tank principally and solely designed for use for railway coaches has now been decided by the South Zonal Bench in the case of CCE, Bangalore v. Sri Ram Metal Works reported in 1998 (99) E.L.T. 616 (Tribunal) = 1998 (75) ECR 209; it has been held therein that Tariff sub-heading 8607.00 is the classification for the aluminium water tank. In this connec....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... on the other hand, submits that the product produced by the appellants is aluminium water tank. It is mentioned specifically, among other articles, in tariff sub-heading 7611.00. He, therefore, submits that being a specific item, the tariff sub-heading 7611.00 will be a proper classification for the product. 6. We observe that this very issue was before the S.Z.B. in the case of Sri Ram Metal Works (supra) relied upon by the ld. Consultant. We have gone through the said judgment. We do not find anything ex facie in the said judgment or any plea advanced by the ld. JDR now which would convince us to take a view contrary to the view taken by the South Zonal Bench. Accordingly, we hold that the correct classification of the product is 8....