2006 (1) TMI 423

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e said product under Heading 68.07 with the benefit of Notification No. 64/88. The said notification provided concessional rate of duty to blocks slabs, lintels, concrete beams and stairs constituting intermediates and components of pre-fabricated buildings falling under Heading No. 94.06. The classification list filed by the appellants during the period 1988 and 1990 were finally approved. However, on account of dispute as regards the availability of said Notification to another manufacturer similarly situate, the classification list filed by the appellants from 1991 onwards were approved provisionally. The said provisional approval was challenged by the appellants before the Commissioner (Appeals), who vide his order dated 18-4-91 held th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....udgments dated 3-3-2005. However, Ld. Advocate submits that the said decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Excon Building Materials Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd., was without considering the contention of the appellants and, as such, had been rendered in sub-silentio. As regards the approval of the same by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, he draws our attention to the observation made by their Lordship that the appellants never claimed that the blocks could be used in pre-fabricated building or that they were intermediates or components of pre-fabricated building and that their only claim was that the benefit of notification was available even to block, slabs and lintels falling under Tariff Item 68.07 even though such blocks, slabs and lint....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....buildings. The identical goods having been held to be not entitled to the benefit of exemption notification, we see no reasons to take a different view inasmuch as we are bound by the judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and cannot take a different view on the ground that certain contentions were not raised before the Hon'ble Court. As such, we hold that the benefit of Notification No. 64/88 has been rightly denied to the appellants. 7. The appellants have further claimed that the Notification No. 64/88, dated 1-3-88 was amended by Finance Act, 1997 by substituting words "components or intermediates of pre-fabricated buildings" by "of a kind used in the pre-fabricated buildings". As such, it is their contention that inasmuch as t....