2007 (1) TMI 52

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dication Order dated 2-12-1997, duty demand was confirmed. The appellant filed an appeal, which was rejected for failure to comply with the Interim Order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellants approached CEGAT Madras, which remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals), in his order dated 19-3-2001, affirmed the classification of the products manufactured by the appellant as decided by the Original Authority. He held that no interest could be demanded in terms of Section 11AB. But, the case, was remanded for de novo adjudication to the lower authority with regard to the various abatements claimed. The Joint Commissioner, Bangalore-III Commissionerate, in his OIO dated 24-3-2003, held that the appellant....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....relied on the following case-laws (i) Sri Kumar Agencies v. CCE, Bangalore- 2000 (116) E.L.T. 483 (Tribunal) (ii) CCE, Bangalore v. Reliance Printers - 2000 (122) E.L.T. 728 (Tribunal) When the learned SDR pointed out that classification was not an issue in the impugned order, the learned Advocate, urged that classification being a legal issue can be raised at appellate stages. He relied on the following case-laws. (i) Essco Sanitations v. CCE - 1989 (44) E.L.T. 752 (Tribunal) (ii) Arunachal Plywood Industries Ltd. v. CCE - 1992 (62) E.L.T. 830 (Tri.) (iii) Assistant Collector of C. Ex. v. Ramdev Tobacco Company - 1991 (51) E.L.T. 631 (S.C.) Further, he pointed out that identical goods have been classified under Chapter 49 in the fol....