ORDER
S.L. Peeran, Member (J)
1. This appeal arises from Order-in-Appeal No. 119/93, dated 8-9-1993 passed by Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Cochin. The appellants had filed classification list 2/90-92 seeking classification of the product under sub-heading 3809 of Central Excise Tariff Act, but the Assistant Collector of Trichur Division vide his Order-in-Original No. 55/91, dated 28-10-1991 classified the item under sub-heading 3404.00. On being challenged before the Commissioner (Appeals), Commissioner Appeals remanded the matter holding that both the tariff sub-heading were not applicable and suggested classification under 34.03 for reconsideration.
2. Ld. Advocate submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) has no authority to suggest a different heading than the one proposed by the appellants in the classification list and even department had suggested in the show cause notice. He further submits that in the appellant’s own case of a different unit, the aspect pertaining to classification of the same product came up before the Tribunal and the Tribunal in the final order in the case of Madura Coats Ltd. v. C.C.E. as reported in 1998 (103) E.L.T. 349 has upheld the appellants’ claim for classification under sub-heading 34.09 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. He submits that the Tribunal order is a detailed order and has considered all material evidence of records including the H.S.N. Notes and the principles of classification. He submits that as the issue is totally covered and that the Tribunal has given a detailed findings, there is no other point required for reconsideration and seeks for following the Judgment of this Tribunal noted above in the present appeal.
3. Heard ld. DR Shri S. Sankaravadivelu, who reiterates the departmental contention.
4. On a careful consideration, we notice that the item in the case of Madura Coats Ltd. is same as the one in the present case. The Tribunal after considering all the material evidence including the HSN tariff notes, disagreed with the department’s view of classifying the product under sub-heading 34.04 including the claim for classification under 34.03, the Tribunal after detailed consideration held that the product. ” ALUSIL SOLUTION” prepared by dispersion of Match Wax in water with the addition of few other items is excisable and dutiable and that it is required to be classified only under sub-heading 3809 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. We notice that the facts being the same, the judgment of the Tribunal applies to the facts of the present case. As the item in the present case which is ALUSIL SOLUTION which is classifiable only under sub-heading 3809.00 of Central Excise Tariff as claimed by the appellant, the appeal is allowed.