2004 (4) TMI 76

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ibunal upholding the demand on account of excise duty under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (as it then stood) (referred to as 'the Act') for the period 1-5-81 to 28-2-86. 2.The appellant has made the following submissions; (i)         the Department had wrongly classified the conveyor belts manufactured by the appellant under Tariff Item 19(III....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Ltd. Aurangabad v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1216, International Conveyors Ltd. Aurangabad v. Collector of Central Excise, Pune - 1983 (14) E.L.T. 2441, Multiple Fabrics Co. P. Ltd., Calcutta v. Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta, 1984 (16) E.L.T. 301, and the decision of this Court in Collector of Central Excise Calcutta v. Multiple Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. etc. - 1987 (29....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....isplaced as that decision relates to PVC impregnated fabrics viz. rexine cloth and not conveyor belts at all. 3.Learned Counsel for the respondent, however, has submitted that the decision in Fenoplast (P) Ltd. (supra) clearly indicates the method by which products such as conveyor belts PVC impregnated were to be classified and applying that method the commodity manufactured by the appellant c....