- (1.)We have heard learned counsel for the Revenue (Appellant) and find that the order of the Tribunal Is correct. Reliance has rightly been placed, given the facts, upon the judgment (AIR 1988 of this Court in Union of India v. Madhumilan Syntex SC 1238) put. Ltd: (35 ELT 349).
(2.)Our attention has been drawn by learned counsel for the (AIR 1989) appellant to the Judgment of this Court in Elson Machines Put. Ltd. sc 617 v. Collector of Central Excise (38 ELT 571) and it is submitted that a different view has been taken therein. We do not think so. The latter judgment only says that there Is no estoppel against seeking to take a different view from that taken in an approved classification list. But that judgment does not say that a demand notice can be issued demanding duty on a basis other than that approved in the classification list without seeking to vary the classification list.
(3.)The appeals are dismissed.