Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Shriram Petroleum Industries vs Commissioner Of Central Excise & ... on 21 January, 2011
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI Application E/S/240/10 in appeal E/189/10 (Arising out of order-in-original no.44/CEX/2007 dated 12.12.2007 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs,Nasik.) For approval and signature: Honble Mr.P.G. Chacko, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. Sahab Singh, Member (Technical) ======================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the :Yes CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities?
====================================================== Date of hearing 21.01.2011 Date pronounced 21.01.2011 Shriram Petroleum Industries Applicant Represented by:
Mr.J.C. Patel, Advocate Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Nasik Respondent Represented by:
Mr. A.K. Prasad Joint Chief Departmental Representative CORAM Mr. P.G. Chacko, Honble Member (Judicial) Mr. Sahab Singh, Honble Member (Technical) ORDER No: ..
Per: P.G. Chacko After examining the records and hearing both sides, we have found that the classification dispute, in this case, is already covered by a decision of this Bench vide Sriram Petroleum Industries vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Nasik 2010 (255) ELT 317 (Tri-Mum). It is also submitted by the learned Jt CDR that the said decision has been accepted by the department. In this scenario, the appeal itself can be finally disposed at this stage.
2. According to the appellant, the product (Naphtha Distillate) is classifiable under Sub-Heading 2710.90 of the CETA Schedule for the period of dispute. The Revenue would like to classify the product under Heading 27.10 (SH2710.13) of the said Schedule. Precisely, this issue for another period was settled by this Bench in the above case in favour of the assessee. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside and the appeal is allowed.
3. The stay application also stands disposed of.
(Pronounced in Court) (Sahab Singh) Member (Technical) (P.G. Chacko) Member (Judicial) rk 2 2 2