2000 (4) TMI 719

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., it appeared that at this stage itself the appeals could be taken up for disposal. This was done by granting waiver of the pre-deposit of the duties and penalties referred to above. 2. The assessees manufactured "molten sulphur" among other commodities. The classification claimed by them was under Heading 2505 of the CETA. Show cause notice dated 29-1-1998 was issued alleging that the appropriate classification for this commodity was under sub-heading 2804.90. It was alleged that the assessees' classification was deliberate with intent to evade payment of duty. Duty amounting to Rs. 22,76,428/- was demanded for the extended period from September, 1994 to January, 1997. Allegations as to penalty were also made. 3. Prior to t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lphur would be appropri­ately classifiable under Sub-heading 2502 of the Central Excise Tariff." 5. It was further submitted that since 1994 the various classification lists and declara­tions filed indicated that the assessees had consistently claimed classification under Heading 2505 alone. Subsequent to the person­al hearing the assessees filed a reply memo­randum of submissions orally made in the hearing. The trade notice was highlighted and the arguments were also highlighted that the instructions by the Ministry had binding effect on the jurisdictional officers. Curi­ously in the summary made by the learned Commissioner of the oral and written arguments made before him, no mention was made of the Board's cir....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... chemical experts. On record are two opinions. The first is technical opinion No. 47/96, dated 30-1-1997 which relates to the classification of molten sulphur manufactured by Sidheshwari Sulphur. Subsequently when the sample from the asses­sees factory was sent the chemical examiner referred to this technical opinion and did not give a separate pronouncement of the classifi­cation of sample sent to him. The assessees in their submissions had claimed that the chemical examiner's job was to give opinion as to chemistry of the sample and the classifica­tion was to be determined by the assessing officer. Here we find that the show cause notice on classification per se was dated 2-1-1997 which was the earliest in chronology but which....