2000 (6) TMI 470

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....i S. Kannan, DR, for the Respondent. [Order per : V.K. Ashtana, Member (T)]. -  To get this appeal heard, the appellants are required to pre-deposit an amount of Rs. 1,26,88,422/- duty confirmed and Rs. 75,00,000/- penalty imposed vide Order-in-Original No. 31/99, dated 20-12-1999 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise. The issue concerns the classification of the yarn manufactured by....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... opinion led by Revenue had not been considered, this very Tribunal had remanded the matter for de novo consideration vide Final Order Nos. 358-360/2000, dated 14-3-2000 in the case of CCE v. Salem Textiles Ltd. He further submits that the order impugned also has erroneously come to conclusion that the use of power was not declared inasmuch as that no spinning frame can be operated without the use....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... carefully considered the rival submissions and records of the case. We find that, on a careful consideration, since the matter lies on a short compass, we order waiver and stay of recovery of the amounts to be pre-deposited and proceed to consider the appeal itself. 6. On a careful consideration of the merits of the case, we notice that the order impugned clearly has violated the principl....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pugned, the same needs to be reconsidered. This cannot be done at the Tribunal's level as revised duty computation would also be involved. (c)      On limitation also, the ld. Commissioner has observed that the appellants have suppressed the use of power. We find it difficult to accept this conclusion because it is common knowledge that heavy machinery like spinning fra....