ORDER 1. This appeal is directed against Final Order No. 175/04-B dated 25-2-2004 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short "the Tribunal") in Appeal No. E-I078/ 02-NB(B) whereby the Tribunal disposed of the appeal modifying the order in-original of the Commissioner dated 7-2-2002. 2. The appeal relates to the classification of "tarpaulin" manufactured by the appellant. The manufacturing process of "tarpaulin" starts with weaving of HOPE tapes by the conventional warp and weft weaving on looms. The fabric so woven is then subjected to coating with LOPE on both sides. Thereafter, it is cut according to size. Ropes are placed on all the four sides and sealed, so that the edges may not get torn at the time of use., After sealing, eyelets are affixed at regular distances. . 3. The appellant started manufacturing this product in the year 1995. It filed its classification declaration on 1-11-1995 under Rule 173- B, classifying the said product under Sub-Heading 3926.90 and claimed exemption under Notification No. 16/94 dated 1-3-1994 as "articles of plastic" manufactured out of duty paid inputs on which no MODVAT credit was availed. This classification declaration was duly verified by the departmental officers and no objection whatsoever was raised. 4. On 4-9-1996, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Rural Division, having jurisdiction over the factory served the appellant with a show-cause notice bearing No. E. No. V 39/3-291/D/96 on the ground that "tarpaulin" is specifically covered by Tariff Heading 6306.00 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (for short "the Act of 1985"). Accordingly, the Assistant Collector, rejecting the earlier classification made by the appellant under Sub-Heading 3926.90, made a demand of Rs 10,18,116 by classifying the said product under Sub-Heading 6306.00. 5. On receipt of the said notice, the appellant changed the classification of its product to Sub-Heading 6306.00 and filed new classification list to that effect. The appellant also filed the necessary classification declaration, which was duly examined under Rule 173-B but no query was raised with regard to classification of "tarpaulin". 6. 5. On receipt of the said notice, the appellant changed the classification of its product to Sub-Heading 6306.00 and filed new classification list to that effect. The appellant also filed the necessary classification declaration, which was duly examined under Rule 173-B but no query was raised with regard to classification of "tarpaulin". 6. After changing the classification of the said product to Sub-Heading 6306.00, the appellant was served with another show-cause notice on 18-3-1999 saying that the appellant had classified the article manufactured by it under Sub-Heading 6306.00 whereas it should have been under Sub-Heading 3926.90 and demanded a differential duty of Rs 2,11,26,368 for the period August 1998 to February 1999. On 22-3-1999 the first show-cause notice dated 4-9-1996 was withdrawn. The appellant filed its reply to the second show-cause notice on 22-7-1999, inter alia, stating that "tarpaulin" was specifically covered under Sub-Heading 6306.00 and as such no differential duty was recoverable and, therefore, the appellant was not liable to any penalty. 7. The Commissioner of Central Excise passed the Order-in-Original No. 3/Commr./2002 dated 7-2-2002 and confirmed the demand amounting to Rs 2,12,61,286. The objections raised by the appellant were rejected and the Commissioner held that "tarpaulin" was classifiable under Sub-Heading 3926.90. Apart from the amount of duty, the Commissioner also imposed penalty in equal amount. 8. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by its orders dated 16/25-2-2004 disposed of the appeal holding that the duty demanded for the month of August 1998 was time-barred. For the remaining period i.e. from September 1998 to February 1999, the demand was upheld. It was also held that since there was a genuine dispute between the appellant and the Department, penalty was not leviable. It was further held that the classification of "tarpaulin" manufactured by the appellant was concluded by the Tribunal's decision in Gujarat Raffia Industries Ltd. v. CCE and, accordingly, following the aforesaid decision it held that "tarpaulin" manufactured by the appellant using plastic granules as raw material is classifiable under Sub-Heading 3926.90. 9. On going through the decision in Gujarat Raffia Industries Ltd. we find that the appellant had filed an intervention application in pursuance of the directions issued by the High Court of Gujarat. The contentions raised by the appellant were rejected and the "tarpaulin" manufactured by the appellant was held to be classifiable under Sub-Heading 3926.90. 9. On going through the decision in Gujarat Raffia Industries Ltd. we find that the appellant had filed an intervention application in pursuance of the directions issued by the High Court of Gujarat. The contentions raised by the appellant were rejected and the "tarpaulin" manufactured by the appellant was held to be classifiable under Sub-Heading 3926.90. The appellant did not challenge the aforesaid decision and the said decision has become final against the appellant. In view of this, counsel for the appellant is not in a position to challenge the classification that the "tarpaulin" manufactured by the appellant was not classifiable under Sub-Heading 3926.90. 10. Counsel for the appellant, however, argued that the appellant had reclassified the "tarpaulin" under Sub-Heading 6306.00 because of the first show-cause notice dated 4-9-1996 issued by the Department. That after reclassifying the "tarpaulin" under Sub-Heading 6306.00, the appellant did not collect the duty payable under Sub-Heading 3926.90. That since the appellant did not collect the duty from its customers because of the contradictory stand taken by the Department, the appellant could not be made to suffer for the same especially when the appellant had not collected the duty from the customers. This argument is a valid argument for waiving/ reducing the penalty but may not hold good for waiving the payment of differential duty. There is no provision under the Act for waiver from payment of duty and the duty can be waived by the exemption notification only. Once the "tarpaulin" is held to be classified under Sub-Heading 3926.90 the appellant is liable to pay the differential duty. Penalty has already been waived. 11. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.