1999 (4) TMI 278

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Respondents. [Order per : P.C. Jain, Vice President]. -  Matter called. None for the respondents despite notice of hearing having been issued by the Registry on 18-2-1999 by registered post. Accordingly, we have heard the learned JDR, Shri V.M. Udhoji for the Revenue in its appeal. 2. Briefly stated facts of this case are as follows :- 2.1 Respondents herein filed a clas....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....for stentering purpose". This was approved at nil rate of duty vide exemption Notification No. 253/82, dated 8-12-1982. 3. We are unable to understand as to how such large scale amendments not only in the classification of goods but also in the description could be made by the Revenue without putting the appellants to notice. It is for this reason that the appellants had submitted before t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....otifications 117/87 and 253/82 should not be clubbed together since they are not independent of one another. It was also pointed out that in respect of a similarly situated processor, namely M/s. Mahesh Textile Processors Pvt. Ltd. classification list was approved in that case without any amendment. 4. The lower appellate authority has held that there can be two types of receipts of cotton....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tering from other factories. Collector (Appeals) has also referred in this connection to a judgment of Madras High Court in respect of S. Sornam v. Inspector of Central Excise, Siva [1982 (10) E.L.T. 49 (Mad.)]. 5. While we agree with the first contention of the respondents that the amendments in the classification list should not have been made by the Assistant Collector on his own even t....