1999 (8) TMI 235

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....llant. Shri A. Ashokan, JDR, for the Respondents. [Order per : J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)]. -  Shri A.V. Naik, Advocate argued the appeal. Shri Ashokan, represented the department. 2.  The appellants manufactured sugar as also sugar cubes. In the classification list filed, sugar cubes were claimed to fall under sub-heading 1701.90. The benefit of Notification No. 15/89 was cla....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....decided the appeal by denying the notification resulting in the present appeal being filed before us. 3. Shri Naik continues to submit that the conversion of sugar into sugar cubes did not amount to manufacture and that the Collector (Appeals) had erred in not permitting the issue to be raised before him. He cited the following orders before him. (i) D.C.M. Shriram Industries v. C.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ver, in agreement with the Collector's finding that the issue of excisability was extraneous to the scope of the appeal before him. As rightly observed by him, the assessees had voluntarily filed the classification accepting the excisability of the cubes. During the course of any contest arising from it, they were precluded from raising the issue of excisability. Nothing prevented them from filing....