2000 (6) TMI 422

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nufacturer had wrongly classified the tubings under CET Sub-heading 7001.90 instead of under CET sub-heading 7008.10 as electric light bulbs, attracting nil rate of duty. The claims were rejected by the Assistant Collector on the ground that the assessee is not eligible to seek refund of duty on the goods as they had discharged the duty liability in accordance with the approved classification list filed by the manufacturer at Mysore. The lower appellate authority has upheld the order of the Assistant Collector holding that it is not open to a purchaser to reopen the assessment finalised in terms of Section 11B (1). Hence these appeals. 2. None appeared for the appellants in spite of notice, hence we heard the learned DR and perused ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ted 1982 (10) E.L.T. 155, I would like to observe that in this case the dispute related to non-levy of additional duty under Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act on import and it was held that the customer or the purchaser can contest the levy of additional duty with reference to Section 64A of the Sale of Goods Act vis-a-vis Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act. The main issue was the power of the Government to levy duty equivalent to Central Excise duty and in this context, the above observation was made, whereas, in the case before me, the basic question is whether under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, the purchaser can have a locus standi with reference to the classification dispute between the manufacturer and the Departmen....