The Assistant Collector, however, did number accept the assessees companytention.
The second order passed by the Assistant Collector was practically a repetition of the earlier order.
He set aside the order appealed against and directed the Assistant Collector to pass a reasoned and speaking order.
He held, by his order dated 4.1.1988, that the products in question fell under heading 39.19.
Ltd. was the subject matter of Civil Appeal No.
The assessee preferred an appeal to the Collector Appeals , who set aside the order of the Assistant Collector.
The assessee thereupon filed a Writ petition in the Bombay High Court.
The Union of India has preferred this appeal.
He also did number give any reasons as to why the order of the Collector Appeals in respect of the Borivili plant was number followed.
The Assistant Collector distinguished it observing that the said decision had number been agreed to by the Department which had filed an appeal to the Supreme Court therefrom.
The High Court quashed the order of the Assistant Collector and directed the department to allocate the matter to a companypetent officer to pass a proper order.
When the matter thus went back to the Assistant Collector he passed an order on 12.5.89, reiterating the companyclusion that had been reached by his predecessor.
Not only this, the assessee had placed before him a decision of the Central Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal the Tribunal in the case of M s. Chetna Plycoats P Ltd., reported in 1988 37 ELT 252 to a similar effect.
The assessee, in reply, pointed out that, in respect of its factory at Borivili, its claim that the goods were classifiable under heading 85.46 and that heading 39.19 had numberapplication had been accepted by the Collector of Appeals.
On the other hand, according to the petitioner, the goods fall under heading 39.19 of the same schedule.
He observed that reason given by the Assistant Collector for number following the order of the Collector of Central Excise Appeals on which the assessee had placed reliance before him was totally untenable.
He distinguished the order in respect of the Borivili plant on the ground that, there, the assessees claim was for classification under heading 85.46 and number 85.47.
The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, therefore, gave numberice to the respondent to show cause why the product should number be classified under heading 39.19.
2321 of 1989 preferred by the department which was dismissed at the stage of admission by this Court on 13th February, 1991.
According to the respondent, the goods manufactured by it fall under tariff heading 85.47 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.
Ranganathan, J. The respondent manufactures electrical insulation tapes.
