1983 (11) TMI 298

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ppeals of the respondents, holding that the goods manufactured by them (conveyor belting) were correctly classifiable under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff and not under Item 22 as held by the Assistant Collector. 2. These appeals first came up for hearing on 10-10-1983, alongwith the appeal filed by M/s. Multiple Fabrics Co. (P) Ltd. (the respondents in the present matter) against an order passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta vide Order-in-Original No. 203(22) 80/Collector-16/83, dated 1-2-1983. At the request of the respondents in these cases, the hearing was adjourned to enable them to file cross-objections. It was also brought to the notice of Shri Tayal, Departmental Representative, that the two appeals appe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he was an assessee, a similar condition should be applied against the Department when the latter was the appellant. According to Shri Banerjee, a certain amount was due to the respondents as refund arising out of the orders under appeal. Since the Department had not approached the Tribunal for a stay in this regard, their appeals should not be admitted. 5. We pointed out to Shri Banerjee that Section 35F did not appear to apply when the appeal was made on behalf of the Department. The section itself refers to "any duty demanded in respect of goods which are not under the control of central excise authorities or any penalty levied under this Act". There is no question of any penalty under the Act or the Rules having been levied on th....