1998 (7) TMI 274

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oduction, a part of it is cleared to the factory at Chem- bur by the appellants, where it is processed to make various drinks marketed as "Mangola". The remaining part is sold at the factory at Pune to outsiders. 2.1 Question involved herein is whether the appellants' goods transferred by them to their factory at Chembur are to be classified under Tariff sub-heading 2001.90, as contended by the appellants or under sub-heading 2001.10, as contended by the Revenue. In order to understand the controversy at hand we reproduce the relevant sub-headings :-   Heading No. Sub-heading No. Description of goods. Rate of duty   (1) (2) (3) (4)   20.01   Preparations of vegetables, fr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....der Notification 34/83-C.E. upheld the order-in-appeal passed by Commissioner (Appeals), as aforesaid. In other words, the Commissioner (Appeals) order dated 30-10-1986 holding that it was a sale became final. As a result, the department on introduction of the new Tariff meanwhile w.e.f. 1-3-1986 had dropped its earlier decision because it had taken up the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. Later on, however, it issued show cause notice dated 13-10-1988 for the period 1-4-1988 to 5-10-1988 demanding duty on the said products treating them as sale under Tariff sub-heading 2001.10. It is this demand of duty which has been confirmed by the lower authorities which is in dispute before us. 3.1 Learned Advocate, Shri M.P. Devnath submi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ment to raise any demands on the above scope even for the period of six months particularly due to the fact that during the period 1986 to 1988 the department just kept quite and did not take any action. 3.4 Opposing the contention learned JDR, Shri A.M. Tilak submits that the correspondence relied upon by the learned Advocate was of the period when this issue was subjudice before the authority i.e. Commissioner (Appeals), Bombay when he passed the order on 30-10-1986 upholding the contention of the appellants herein that the transaction between the Pune and Chembur Units is one of sale. He further submits that keeping in view only the dispute persisting between the department and the appellants for a long time, the Revenue has aske....