2010 (12) TMI 468

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lant. S/Shri Pradeep S. Jetly a/w J.B. Mishra, for the Respondent. [Order]. -  P.C. : Heard the learned counsel for the Appellant and the learned counsel for the Respondent. Perused the Appeal. 2. The Appeal is admitted on the following substantial question of law :- "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in directing the Appe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tral Excise, the Appellant filed an Appeal before the CESTAT with the Application for Stay. By the impugned order dated 29th July 2010, the CESTAT directed the Appellant to deposit Rs.15,00,000/- inter alia on the ground that the appellant itself has claimed that the classification upheld by the CESTAT in the case of Caprihans India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise. Aurangabad reported in 20....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....unal in the case of Caprihans India Ltd. as well as the order of the Apex Court confirming the said order was also available and it was open to the commissioner to classify the goods under Tariff Heading 3916. However, the Commissioner of Central Excise has chosen to classify the goods under Tariff Heading 3920.39. The question before the Tribunal was, whether the Commissioner was justified in cla....