TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (8) TMI 259
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hapter sub-heading 2710.19. Thirty show cause notices (SCNs) were issued proposing classification of the goods as "motor spirit" and demanding differential duty. The basis for the issue of the SCN was a test report of the Chemical Examiner, Central Excise, Baroda dated 25-8-1986. The SCNs were adjudicated under Order-in-Original No. D/127/89, dated 31-7-1989 by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Div. V, Vadodara, confirming a duty demand for over Rs. 13 crores. He held that the goods were classifiable under sub-heading 2710.19 as "other motor sprit". When the appellants challenged this order before the Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs (Appeals), Ahmedabad, Order-in-Appeal No. 554/91 (305 BRD)/C.E., dated 29-6-1991 was passed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in combining the proceedings without notice to the assessees. In para 9, the Commissioner ordered as under : "I, therefore, set aside the classification of NGL as done by the Assistant Collector. He should not take steps for doing alternative classification of the subject goods." Aggrieved by this order, the Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara filed an appeal before this Tribunal [Appeal No. E/2680/93-C]. That appeal submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) had acted improperly in quashing the proceedings. It was contended that the Commissioner himself should have determined the correct classification of the item and passed a correct and proper order. In support of this contention, reliance was placed on order of this Tribunal ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ounsel submitted that the AC could have passed an order confirming classification as motor spirit only on re-test of the remnant sample and upon satisfaction that the sample was suitable for use in Spark Ignition engines. Remnant sample was not available for re-test. Still a second adjudication order was passed confirming classification as motor spirit. The second Order-in-Appeal set aside that order and held that the Assistant Collector could only drop the duty demand raised in the SCNs in the absence of sample to test. He also submitted that the Revenue's contention in their appeal that the Commissioner himself could have determined the correct classification, including under a different Chapter heading than motor spirit as proposed in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....demands cannot be confirmed on the basis of classifications not proposed in the SCNs. In the 30 SCNs, classification of NGL as Motor spirit had been proposed. This classification was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that the test report relied upon by the Assistant Commissioner did not show that NGL satisfied the various criteria for Motor spirit. In the remand proceedings, no sample was available for testing in order to determine classification as Motor spirit. Therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) correctly held that the demand in respect of 30 SCNs could only be dropped by the Assistant Commissioner. Revenue's appeal against that order has no merit. Therefore, the 30 SCNs amounting to demand of Rs. 13.4 crores remain....