2014 (2) TMI 406

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....04.1999 to 23.08.1999, whether the same should be classified under CETH 38.02 as activated earth as claimed by Revenue or as a product of CETH 25.05 as claimed by the appellant. 2. The present case is the outcome of CESTATs order No. A/1855/WZB/AHD/09 dated 07.08.2009 wherein the Order-in-Appeal No. 184/2009 dated 26.11.2008 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Ahmedabad was set aside and the matter was remanded to the original adjudicating authority to decide the matter afresh after satisfying the directions given by the Commissioner (Appeals), Ahmedabad vide OIA No.100 to 101/2006 to 12.07.2006. Adjudication proceedings initiated against the appellant vide SCN No.V.25/15-15/II/OA/99 dated 21.04.1999 which was decided by the Commissione....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s argument that without following the directions of Commr.(A) order dt. 12.07.2006, which was not appealed against by the Revenue, adjudicating authority and first appellate authorities cannot decide the issue against the appellant. 4. Shri S.K. Mall (A.R.) appearing on behalf of the appellant defended the order passed by the adjudicating authority and the first appellate authority. 5. Heard both sides and perused the case records. First appellate authority vide OIA dt. 12.07.2006 remanded the case to the lower adjudicating authorities. Relevant para 8 of the OIA No.100 to 101/2006(Ahd-III)CC/DK/Commr.(A), dt. 12.07.2006 is reproduced below: 8. I have carefully considered the facts of the case and submissions of the appellants. I find t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... has been affirmed by Hon'ble CEGAT order dtd. 21.05.2002 (Supra) & which has been accepted by the appellants themselves also. As regards date of effecting said change, I find that the appellant have contended that they had changed the manufacturing process after the search in Nov.98. Hence the rationale of the Commissioner order dated 29.12.2000 should not apply for classification of 'Bleach 9' after the process of manufacture was changed. I have already held since the change was informed to Department w.e.f. 14.5.99, the change of classification of 'bleach 9' should be effected with the effect from 15.5.99 onward and accordingly I had already confirmed the classification of 'bleach 9' under heading 38.02 upto 14.5.99 in terms of CEGAT ord....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ts informed the Department about the change of manufacturing process of Bleach 9) onwards. Needless to say that if there is any adverse report of Chief Chemist the same should be provided to the appellants before any decision in the matter. Like wise the appellant should also be allowed to produce the parameter / reports which would substantiate their claim that item manufactured by them is non activated. The appellants defence that item is not activated, be also sent to Chief Chemist with chemical examiner report. Further I find that different show cause notices have been issued on the same issue for different period answerable to different adjudicating authorities. The Central Board of Excise and Customs vide Circular No.362/78/97-CX date....