TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (8) TMI 259
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 by the Commissioner, remanding the mat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....otice 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 in the case of Hindustan Polymers [1986 (24....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er 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 the SCN, was not permissible at all. He pointed out tha....