2001 (3) TMI 379

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ants. Dr. D.K. Verma, , SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. - The brief facts of these cases are as under: 2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of various grades of Gelatines falling under sub-heading 3503.00 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule. They have a power plant in their factory for the purpose of manufacture of Gelatine. In that po....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....isable in their revised declaration also, the Department issued another SCN dated 20-1-1997 for classifying the goods under TSH 2621.00 and also for recovering duty of excise on the clearances of coal ash made during the period 23-7-1996 to 31-12-1996. The appellants contested both the SCNs. In adjudication of the first SCN, the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise accepted the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....es are against that order of the Commissioner (Appeals). There were two other SCNs also against the appellants, one dated 3-12-1998 and the other dated 27-5-1998 seeking to recover from them Rs. 37,174/- and Rs. 54,292/- respectively towards duty on coal ash at the rate applicable to TSH 2621.00, for two different periods. The A.C. confirmed the demands. The assessee preferred appeals. The Comm....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r was not "other ash" under Heading 26.21 as it was residue of coal distinguishable from mere ash. Ld. Advocate, therefore, prayed for setting aside the impugned order which was passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) by relying on the Board's circular. Ld. SDR could not cite any better authority on the issue of classification of the impugned goods. 5. The impugned order was passed by the Com....