TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (2) TMI 370
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndent. [Order per : P.S. Bajaj, Member (J)]. - This order will dispose of two appeals No. E/537/95-B preferred against the order-in-appeal, dated 30-12-1994 and No. E/954/95-B against the order-in-appeal, dated 28-2-1995 passed by the Collector (Appeals). In both the appeals filed by the Revenue, the issue involved is common regarding the classification of product known as front end dozer ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....95-B the duty amount is Rs. 1,70,833.35 for the period February, 1994 to March, 1994. The Collector (Appeals) through the impugned orders referred to above, did not agree with the view of the Assistant Collector and held the classification of the products, front end dozer, under Heading 84.32 of the CETA, as claimed by the respondents. 3. The Revenue has filed the present two appeals against....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lier order of the Collector (Appeals) classifying the products in question under Heading 84.32 of the CETA and to reverse the same, when it had already attained the finality. 5. It is also not the case of the Revenue that earlier any mistake of fact or law was committed by the Collector (Appeals) while classifying the product in question under Heading 84.32 of the CETA. No change in the mode....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fication of the product in question. In the show cause notice, it was alleged that the product in question (front end dozer) manufactured by the respondents was classifiable under Heading 84.31 of the CETA but surprisingly and strangely, they had now in the grounds of appeal claimed the classification under Heading 84.30 of the CETA. But it is well settled that no new case can be allowed to be mad....