9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2010 (4) TMI 316X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as allowed the appeal filed by the Respondents against the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority. The Adjudicating Authority by its order dated 2-12-1999 had confirmed classification of the goods in question under sub-heading 8201.00 and confirmed demand of duty to the tune of Rs. 4,62,420/- and Rs. 2,28,251/- while appropriating the amount already debited to the extent of Rs. 1,90,000/- arid ordered payment of interest on the amount due. The said order disposed of the show cause notices issued to the respondents on 30-11-1998 and 1-12-1998. 3. The Respondents are engaged in the manufacture of goods such as Auto Leaf Spring, Hoe, Axes, Sickle and parts of Chaff Cutter of different sub heading of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Durin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... classification of the product is clearly established. 5. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the respondents submits that though there was no material on record to counter the finding arrived by the Adjudicating Authority no fault could be found with the order of the Appellate Authority as far as it confirmed the entitlement of SSI exemption to the respondents. In this regard attention was drawn to the show cause notice dated 30-11-1998 wherein the department had admitted that the respondents are entitled to SSI exemption Notification No 38/97 dated 27-6-1997 and to get the goods cleared by paying duty at the rate of 9% ad valorem. 6. The goods which are classifiable under sub-heading 84 24 are described in the relevant tariff schedu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed and needs to be set aside while restoring the finding in that regard by the Adjudicating Authority. 9. The appellants are also justified in contending that the Commissioner (Appeals) should not have denied collection of duty for the period prior to issuance of show cause notice ignoring the fact that the respondents had availed the benefit of nil rate of duty in respect of the goods in question on the strength of wrong classification thereof. Besides pursuant to declaration what was found regarding classification was not adjudicated upon by competent authority. In the circumstances, therefore such finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be sustained and therefore the finding of the Adjudicating Authority in that regard needs to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
