TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (9) TMI 1132
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Authority has set aside the OIO dt. 28.12.2006 passed by the Adjudicating Authority under OIO No.17/Add.Comm/2006 dt. 28.12.2006 Adjudicating Authority confirmed a demand of Rs. 34,80,000/- under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act 1944, alongwith interest, and also appropriated the duty and interest already paid by the respondent herein. In addition to above equivalent amount of penalty was also paid under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. Shri S.S.Chattopadhyay, Suptd.(AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue argued that it was not open to the Commissioner (Appeal) to decide the issue of classification for the duty of Rs. 34,80,000/- paid voluntarily for the clearances ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eared in CKD/SKD condition from various divisions of the respondent are classifiable under Central Excise Tariff Heading (CETH) 87.08. That by a letter dated 10.09.2003 his client wrote to the jurisdictional commissioner that their product is classifiable under CETH 87.08 and that their competitors like M/s. Ashok Leyland Co. are also classifying the same goods under CETH 87.08. That by another letter dt. 10.10.2003 respondent also sent a letter to CBEC on the same issue. That department vide another show cause notice dt. 31.1.2006, for the period 15.09.2005 to 30.11.2005, demanded duty of Rs. 1,43,61,600/- on the same issue that CKD/SKD units are classifiable under CETH 8706. That by an OIO No.08/Commr/06 dt. 29.08.2006 Adjudicating Author....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....both sides and perused the case records. There was a dispute about the classification of parts cleared by the respondent whether under CETH 8708 or CETH 8706. For the period 15.09.2005 to 30.11.2005 this issue was decided by the Adjudicating Authority under OIO No.08/Commr./06 dt. 29.08.2006 which was set aside by CESTAT under Final Order No.A-1547/Kol/07 dt. 11.07.07 by holding that impugned goods cleared from different divisions of the respondent have to be assessed on merit in each case and not together as motor vehicle chassis in CKD/SKD condition. The order passed by this bench has reached finality. It is the case of the Revenue that Order No.A-1547/Kol/2007 dt. 09.08.2007 of this bench was only for the period 15.09.2005 to 30.11.2005 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eaves Ltd. vs.- C.C.E., Aurangabad[1996(87)E.L.T.414(Tribunal)]. iv) Shon Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. vs.-Collector of Central Excise[1991(52)E.L.T.608(Tribunal)]. 5.1. In the case of CCE Baroda -vs.-Cotspun Ltd.(Supra) Apex court has held as follows in paragraph-13:- 13. The levy of excise duty on the basis of an approved classification list is the correct levy, at least until such time as to the correctness of the approval is questioned by the issuance to the assessee of a show cause notice. It is only when the correctness of the approval is challenged that an approved classification list ceases to be such. 5.2. It is now a well accepted legal proposition that department can raise a demand within the prescribed time limit under....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ue to incorrect classification even if duty was paid with interest. We do not find anything wrong in OIA dt. 26.09.2007 of the First Appellate Authority to hold the classification of parts cleared by the respondent under CETH 8708 by relying upon Final Order No.A-1547/Kol/2007 dt. 09.08.2007 passed by this bench. 6. It is further observed that ground (iv), taken in the grounds of appeal by the Revenue, is not valid now as order rejecting Revenue s ROM has been finally upheld by Apex Court by dismissing Revenue s appeal. The apprehension of the Revenue in ground (vi) of the grounds of appeal, that change in classification for the earlier period will tantamount to making re-assessment, is not the correct appreciation of law. As per Rul....