2000 (5) TMI 380

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sp;Proximity Projector 2. In the impugned order, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the Order-in-Original No. IV/4/188/86 VC (CL) dated 3-7-90 passed by ACCE on the ground that Revenue in their appeal appealed before her had not advanced any specific grounds for classifying the above items under chapter heading 85.12 neither have they rebutted the factual position found by the ACCE in the order-in-original. Therefore, the ruling appealed by Revenue in this appeal is to the following effect :- Item Classification as per Order impugned Classification claimed by Revenue Beeper Alarm Unit 85.31 85.12 Pilot Lamp Holder 85.31 85.12 Proximity Projector 85.43 85.12 3. Heard ld. DR Shri S. S....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....re general sub-heading namely 85.31/85.43. He therefore submits that reclassification claimed in this appeal should be upheld by this court. 5. Heard Shri S. Ramanathan, learned Advocate for respondents who submits as follows :- (a) The entire demand would be barred by limitation in view of Hon'ble Apex Court judgment in the case of CCE v. Cotspun Pvt. Ltd. as in 1999 (113) E.L.T. 353 (S.C.) as in this case an approved classification was sought to be re-opened by Revenue vide two show cause notices dated 31-8-89 and 30-3-90. Therefore, he submits that demand confirmed needs to be set aside. (b) On the question of merits of classification, he submits that though the Beeper Alarm Unit and Pilot Lamp Holder are mainly s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ing on record to show that these were equally designed for other than automotive use except for an assertion to this effect by ld. Advocate. In view of specific provisions under Chapter 85.12 to the effect that visual and audio signalling devices used for automotive use would fall under heading 85.12 and in view of HSN explanatory notes on page 1460 under Section XVI holding that such items for automotive use would fall under 85.12, therefore, we are of the considered view that these two items would be classifiable under chapter heading 85.12 of CET Act, 1985. 8. The position with respect to classification of Proximity Projector is however slightly different. The Order-in-Original has been perused wherein the original authority has ....