2005 (6) 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

....Cotspun's case. However, on facts, it is agreed that the matter requires to be remitted to the Tribunal for deciding the question of classification and other issues. In the result, the appeals are partly allowed. The impugned order passed by the Tribunal is set aside.  The Tribunal to decide the contention raised by the respondents with regard to classification of the goods in question and other issues, if any." 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellants had filed classification list effective from 1-3-89 (Range Sl. No. 3/MGE/89). In column 6 of the said classification list, they have described the excisable goods manufactured by them intended to be removed from the factory as "Parts suitable for use solely or ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....effect in the Finance Act, 2000 which received the assent of the President on 12-5-2000. This application for rectification of mistake was rejected by the Tribunal under Misc. Order No. 41/2001-B, dated 4-5-2001. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut filed Civil Appeal Nos. 8113-8114/2001 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by which the order of the Tribunal was set aside and the case was remitted to the Tribunal for deciding the question of classification and other issues. 3. None appeared for the appellants despite the fact that the case was on Board. No application for any adjournment was received. Therefore, the case was taken up for decision on merits. 4.  Shri Vikas Kumar, learned SDR appearing for the Revenue, plead....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....85 and 85.48) are in all cases to be classified in their respective headings. In view of this Note, he states that transformers are correctly classifiable under Heading 8504.00 and the differential duty has been correctly demanded. 5. We find the Tribunal in its Final Order No. 1435/99-B, dated 23-12-99 had allowed the appeal only on one ground that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court, in CCE, Baroda v. Cotspun Ltd. [1999 (113) E.L.T. 353 (S.C.) = 1999 (34) RLT 709], the demand was held time-bar. Consequent to retrospective amendment of Section 11A by Section 110 of the Finance Act, 2000, if the classification is found otherwise than what has been approved, then the department is free to demand duty short paid from the ass....