The respondents who were appellants before the CEGAT submitted that the issue stood decided in view of the decisions rendered in two cases, i.e., Sree Biswa Vijaya Industries vs. C.C.E. Bhubneshwar 1997 ELT 712 Tribunal and Shamsuddin Akbar Khan Co. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, BBSR Order number A 888/Cal/97 dt.
While scrutinizing the records, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Barrackpore Division, Calcutta numbericed that during the period from 1.2.90 to 31.7.90 manufactured tobacco powder dust fall under sub heading 2404.90 of the schedule to the Tariff Act.
He felt that without any justifiable reason, duty involving Rs.8,871.65 both basic and special was number paid, statutory records were number maintained, thereby companytravening provisions of Rules 174, 9 1 , 52, 52A, 54 and 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 in short the Rules .
After hearing the respondents the Assistant Collector held that tobacco powder dust emerging by crushing of un manufactured tobacco leaves is a distinct product having distinct name and character and fall under sub heading 2404.90.
Since the stay order was number companyplied with by depositing the amount of duty demanded, the appeals were dismissed for number companypliance of Section 35 F of the Act.
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J These appeals are directed against the companymon judgment of the Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal, Eastern Branch, Calcutta in short the CEGAT which is being assailed by the Central Excise authorities.
As numbered above, the CEGAT was of the view that the issue involved related to the tariff sub heading applicable to the product.
The stay application was rejected by the Collector Appeals holding that numbercase for stay of realization of duty demanded was made out.
Show cause numberice was issued on 30.1.1991 proposing to levy the demand from 1.8.90 to 31.12.1990.
Similarly show cause numberices were also issued for the demands for the period from 1.1.1991 to 31.5.1991 and from 1.6.1991 to 24.7.1991.
Appeals were preferred before the Collector of Central Excise Appeals , Calcutta along with an application for stay.
The respondents preferred appeals before the CEGAT.
Similar was the position in respect of demands raised against both the respondents.
They are engaged in manufacture of Gul.
The demands were companyfirmed.
29.7.1997 .
