PRABHU COATINGS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a rectification application in respect of Tribunal's final Order No. 2613/97, dated 1 -10 -1997 [1998 (104) E.L.T. 795 (Tribunal)] passed by the then Members S/Shri V.P. Gulati and T.P. Nambiar deciding classification of the book binding cloth under sub heading 59.01 instead of under Tariff Heading 52.06. The operative portion of the order is only one paragraph in para 4 which is reproduced below : -

(2.) THE appellants submits that Order -in -Original No. 32/92, dated 20 -7 -1992 dealt with not only classification but also the aspects pertaining to confirmation of demand of Rs. 2,29.947.89 in respect of clearances of 28011.700 L. MTS grey fabrics found short and duty on 197038.300 L. MTS of final products sold between 22 -6 -1989 and 5 -12 -1990 under Rule 9(2) of C.E. Rules read with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. Besides a penalty of Rs. 10,000/ -. It is stated that the appellants had taken out licence on 6 -2 -1990 and had also brought to the notice of the department all the details pertaining to the manufacature and clearances, therefore there was no question of invoking larger period in the matter. It was also pointed out that in the competing industries, the item in question was classified only under Chapter Heading 52 which carried nil rate of duty and hence appellants had bona fide belief that they were entitled for the benefit of duty exemption in terms of Notification No. 253/82. It is pointed out that this aspect was not considered by both the Commissioner as well as by the Tribunal and hence there is a clear mistake apparent on record.

(3.) LD . Advoate takes us through the grounds of appeal wherein they had clearly raised this ground pertaining to the demand being time barred both on the bona fide belief as well as all the details having been furnished to the department. He also points out to the notification pertaining to exemption. It was also pointed out in the grounds that the identical goods had been classified in Hyderabad Collectorate only under Heading 52.06 and hence the demands were not maintainable. Ld. Counsel submits that the Tribunal has not referred to these grounds or the Order -in -Original refers to it although the grounds have been recorded by the Commissioner in para 15 of the order. Therefore, he submits that the final order of the Tribunal in Order No. 2613/97, dated 1 -10 -1997 [1998 (104) E.L.T. 795 (T)] is required to be recalled and appeal heard on all the points including classification.