2001(01)LCX0114
IN THE CEGAT, SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, BANGALORE
S/Shri G.A. Brahma Deva, Member (J) and S.S. Sekhon, Member (T)
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, BANGALORE
Final Order No. 97/2001, dated 29-1-2001 in Appeal No. E/SB/2637/95
CASE CITED
Commissioner v. New Rosy Enterprises — 1997(02)LCX0206 Eq 1998 (100) ELT 0374 (Tribunal) — Referred .. [Para 2]
Advocated By : Shri Ravi Shankar, Advocate, for the Appellant.
Smt. Radha Arun, SDR, for the Respondent.
[Order per : G.A. Brahma Deva, Member (J)]. - This appeal arises out and is directed against OIA 25/95 in C25/336/APP/94, dated 31-3-1995 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Bangalore.
2. Shri Ravi Shankar, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the point to be considered in this case is whether coil formers are classifiable under 8504 as claimed by the party or under Chapter 8547 as per the Department. He submitted that the Commissioner has consistently taken the view that the item coil formers is classifiable under 8504. In this context he drew our attention to Order No. 38/97, dated 21-5-1997 wherein he followed the order of Appeal No. 82/96, dated 26-11-1996 while deciding the issue in favour of the assessee. He also referred to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai v. New Rosy Enterprises reported in 1997(02)LCX0206 Eq 1998 (100) ELT 0374 (Tribunal), wherein it was held that Ferrite Cores is classifiable under the Chapter Heading 8504.90 of the CTA.
3. Smt. Radha Arun appearing for the Revenue submitted that here the item in question is coil formers and not ferrite cores. The Tribunal has decided the issue on classification of ferrite cores only. She said that she has no objection to remand the matter for reconsideration.
4. In the facts and circumstances and taking into consideration the submissions made by both sides and to the orders referred to by the Counsel we are of the view that the issue involved herein is required to be examined by the Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly the matter is remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the case afresh in accordance with law and in providing an opportunity to the party. Thus this appeal is allowed by way of remand.
5. Ordered accordingly.