Final Order No. 711/98-C arising from in Appeal No. E/1938/94-C. Case: Collector of Central Excise, Aurangabad Vs Almet Corporation. Central Information Commission
| Case Number | Final Order No. 711/98-C arising from in Appeal No. E/1938/94-C |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Shri Satnam Singh, DR. |
| Judges | Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J) and Shri V.K. Agrawal, Member (T) |
| Issue | Central Excise Act |
| Citation | 1999 (111) ELT 646 (Tribunal) |
| Judgement Date | September 04, 1998 |
| Court | Central Information Commission |
Order:
V.K. Agrawal, Member (T), (New Delhi)
-
The short point involved in the appeal preferred by the Revenue is whether the Order-in-Original was passed by the Assistant Collector on a ground not raised in the show cause notice.
-
Shri H.K. Jain, learned DR submitted that the respondents were manufacturing Miproten liquid and Miproten drops and in their classification list, has classified them under Chapter 30 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act.
-
The show cause notice dated 30-8-1989 was issued to them on the ground that the products were classifiable under sub-heading 2107.91 or 3504.00 and that the benefit of Notification 48 of 1977 was not available as the products were falling under Chapter 30. The Assistant Collector in order dated 15-9-1993 has classified the product under sub-heading 3003.10 as P and P medicines but denied the benefit of Notification 48/77 on the ground that the trade packs and sample packs were identical without any difference whatsoever. On appeal, the Collector (Appeals) set aside the Assistant Collector''s order holding that the order was based on a totally new ground for which no opportunity was given to the assessees to present their case. Shri Jain submitted that at the time of personal hearing before the Assistant Collector, the assessee had defended the issue of applicability of notification for their samples and also sample packs; that it is apparent from these facts that the opportunity was given to the assessee to present their case for denial of the exemption under Notification 48/77. He also referred in this regard to the record of personal hearing which is at page 30 of the paper book. No one was present...
To continue reading
Request your trial