2015 (10) TMI 1546

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t is of the view that it would be classifiable under heading No. 28.36 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and the duty is payable. The Tribunal by final order No. A/831/WZB/AHD/2008 dated 23.4.2008, upheld the classification under Heading 2836.90, following the earlier decisions in the case of M/s. Chaturgia Bio-chemicals Limited - 2001 (131) ELT 173 (Tri. Del.) and Gulshan Sugar & Chemical Works - 2002 ((150) ELT 890 (Tri. Del.), upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as reported in 2005 (179) ELT A-205 (SC). The Tribunal remanded the matter for re-quantification of duty with certain directions. The appellant challenged the order of the Tribunal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was dismissed as reported in -2009 (243) ELT 321 (....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....use notices were issued which were decided in favour of the appellant by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide OIA dated 25.02.1998. The Commissioner (Appeals) set-aside the adjudication order following the Hon'ble High Court order which is binding on time-barred.  In this factual background, the Assessing Officer has no power to issue show cause notices and the demand of duty is not sustainable on this ground alone. He relied upon the following decisions:- (a) Eco Valley Farms & Foods Limited vs. CCE, Pune-II - 2013 (290) ELT 49 (Bom.) (b) Prayagraj Dyeing & Printing Mills Pvt. Limited vs. UOI - 2013 (290) ELT 61 (Guj.) (c) Priya Blue Industries Limited vs. Commissioner of Customs (Prev.) - 2004 (172) ELT 145 (SC.) (d) Ashfa Himarc ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uary 2001 to November 2002, have already decided by the Tribunal, which is upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In our considered view, the demand of duty on these three show cause notices have already been merged with the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision.  The appellant is not contesting the classification of the goods on merit. Hence we do not find any force in the submission of the learned Senior Advocate and there is no need to discuss the case laws, as the present case is covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the appellant. 5. We find force in the submission of the learned Senior Advocate in respect of confirmation of the demand of duty for the show cause notices dated 16.6.1997 and 04.3.1997. It is c....