IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO.19 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Raigad ..Appellant. V/s. M/s.Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Limited ..Respondent. Mr.G. Srinivasan with Mr.G. Hariharan for the Appellant. Mr.V. Sreedharan with Mr.V.Y. Pareisa, Aziz Khan i/by Divya Sheth & Associates for the Respondent. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 6TH AUGUST, 2008 P.C. : 1. Heard learned counsel for both the sides. 2. Admitted position is that 10 show cause notices were issued claiming that the duty is payable under tariff item 11A(5) and 11AA(2). That demand became subject matter of proceedings before the tribunal in Appeal No.E/2700 and 2701/86-C. They were decided on 25-6-1986. Operative order is para 7 of that order. It reads thus : "7. As a result of the aforesaid discussion we find that manufacture has taken place and in view of the agreed position set out above Lean Gas would be classifiable under Tariff item 68 of the erstwhile tariff. The appellants would be eligible to benefit of any exemption notification which may be lawfully available to them consequent to classification of goods under T.I.68. As a result classification under T.I 11A is set aside and Lean Gas held classifiable under T.I. 68 with benefit of any exemption notification lawfully applicable." 3. It is thus clear that before the tribunal, both the parties agreed that the relevant tariff item is 68. It appears that after this order was passed, proceedings were taken up again by the Original Authority and four fresh show cause notices were issued. The 10 show-cause notices which were earlier issued were also taken up for decision and the duty was charged under tariff item 68. Again, this was challenged ultimately before the tribunal. The tribunal disposed of the appeal by order dated 16-7-2007 which is under challenge here. 4. The tribunal held that in view of earlier order quoted above, ten show-cause notices could not have proceeded further and it has however not disturbed the order pursuant to four show cause notices. The only submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant that by order which is quoted above, the proceedings were remanded back to the Original Authority for processing the show cause notices, as if they are issued in relation to tariff item 68, but perusal of the order quoted above shows that the submission has no substance. There was no remand in relation to the show-cause notices and finding was recorded that the relevant tariff item is 68 and not 11A(5) and 11AA(2). In our opinion, the view that has been taken by the tribunal is a reasonable view calling for no interference at the hands of this Court. Hence, the appeal is rejected. D.K. DESHMUKH, J. J.P. DEVADHAR, J.