MEEMA ENGINEERING WORKS Vs. COLLECTOR OF C. EX.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE issue involved in these two appeals arising out of common order dated 29 -3 -1993 is regarding demand of duty on Gharghanties which were classified by the Department under 85.09 as against 84.37 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act claimed by the Department.

(2.) SHRI K.A. Sindhi, learned Consultant submitted that the Central Board of Excise and Customs vide Circular No. 82/82/94 -CX, dated 5 -12 -1994 has clarified that Domestic flour mill for milling cereals is appropriately classifiable under Heading 84.37. He further submitted that the Supreme Court in Ranadey Micronutrients v. C. C.E. - 1996 (87) E.L.T. 19 (S.C.) has held that the Department cannot argue against the circulars issued by the Board Under Section 37B of the Central Excise Act. According to him this decision has been followed in subsequent cases by the Supreme Court and the latest decision is in the case of Mathew M. Thomas v. Commissioner of Income Tax - 1999 (111) E.L.T. 4 (S.C). Relying on these decisions he has contended that the Department now before the Tribunal in the present matters cannot contend that the Domestic Flour Mill manufactured by them is classifiable under 85.09 and once the goods manufactured by them are classifiable under 84.37, the question of paying any differential duty does not arise. The learned Consultant has given up his arguments on time limit in respect of the demands confirmed in the impugned order.

(3.) SHRI A.K. Jain, learned DR submitted that the classification issue had earlier come before the Appellate Tribunal in the case of appellants themselves as reported in 1994 (72) E.L.T. 222 in which it was held that the impugned goods are classifiable under Heading 85.09 of the Central Excise Tariff. The learned DR also mentioned that the Tribunal had relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Nat Steel Equipment Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.E. [1988 (34) E.L.T. 8 (S.C.)].