Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3.7. Arguing that it is not open to the Revenue authorities to change their stand in the matter of classification without any cogent reasons, the learned Advocate submits that it leads to a divergent classification in other Commissionerates resulting in unfair discrimination of taxes in respect of the same goods. If the stand now taken by the excise authorities is accepted, a manufacturer of soap noodles would never have been able to avail the benefit of the above notifications. In this connection, he relies upon the decision/judgments in the case of the Central India Spinning and Weaving Manufacturing Co. Ltd. And the Express Mills, Nagpur vs. Municipal Committee, Wardha: AIR 1958 SC 341; C.C.E. Vs. Parle Exports (P) Ltd.: 1988 (38) ELT 741 (SC); and Swadeshi Polytex Ltd. Vs. C.C.E. 1989 (44) ELT 794 (SC); C.C., Bombay vs. United Electrical Industries Ltd.: 1999 (108) ELT 609 (SC); Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. V. Deputy Commissioner 1991 (55) ELT 437 (SC); Punjab Rubber & Allied Industries vs. UOI: 1983 (12) ELT 54 (P & H); P.K. Nimel vs. Assistant Collector of Central Excise: 1988 (36) ELT 482 (Kerala); Alembic Glass Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India: 1992 (59) ELT 207; Akbar Badruddin Jiwani vs. C.C.: 1990 (48) ELT 441 (CEGAT); TTK Pharma Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.: 1993 (63) ELT 446 (CEGAT); and C.C.E., Calcutta-I & II vs. Black Diamond Beverages Ltd.: 1998 (103) ELT 655 (CEGAT).