2000 (3) TMI 634

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Appellant. Shri K.L. Ramteke, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)]. - These appeals arise out of orders passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Bhopal. The appeals, therefore, would lie to Delhi benches of the Tribunal. Vide two miscellaneous applications the plea is made by the applicants that since the registered office of the applicants is ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nder sub-heading 5801.31 of the CETA. The department insisted on classifying the products as under 5801.32. In these proceedings the Assistant Commissioners upheld the department's case thereby confirming the differential duties payable and also imposing penalties. Against these two sets of orders, the assessees filed two appeals. The Commissioner (Appeals) in his interim orders directed pre-depos....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....omply with his directions under the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. In these orders he did not speak of the modification applications or the issues on merits agitated by the assessees. The appeals have been filed against these two orders. 4. We observe that in the cited case the Supreme Court had permitted disposal of the stay application without hearing the asse....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....T. 89 (b) Entek IRD International v. CCE - 2000 (115) E.L.T. 515 6. We further observe that where in the orders leading to the present dispute before us, the Assistant Commissioner has not accepted the classification suggested by the assessees, thereby confirming the differential duty, in the later proceedings perhaps on following the Board's orders, the same classification has be....