9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (1) TMI 540X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts of the present case – Held that: - factual position is not in dispute in the present case - Chapter Heading of the Customs Tariff is the same as before the Tribunal in the earlier case where the goods were held to be classifiable under sub-heading 0511.99 of the Customs Tariff - find no reason to take a different view. - CDM-32/2004 - A-42/KOL/2010 - Dated:- 19-1-2010 - S/Shri S.S. Kang, Vic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er of Customs (P), Mumbai v. Artherton Engg. (P) Ltd. - 2002 (144) E.L.T. A-293. 3. The contention of the Appellant is that now there is certain changes in the Chapter 5 of Customs Tariff whereby Artemia was specifically classifiable under Sub-Heading 051199.11. The contention is that this aspect was not there when the earlier case was decided by the Tribunal. The Appellant also relied upon the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decision. 4. The contention is that in view of earlier decision of the Tribunal is not applicable in the facts of the present case and the goods in question are to be classifiable under chapter 23 of Customs Tariff. 5. The Revenue's contention is that the Tribunal in the Appellants' own case decided the issue of classification in favour of the Revenue and Appeal of the Appellant is dismissed b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... herefore the ratio of the above decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 8. In respect of explanation to notification at Sl. No. 5 we find that as explanation the Prawn Feed means Shrimp which are capable of used as such. Whereas the goods in question need lot of processing before get converted into larvae which is used as Prawn Feed. This finding is the order passed by the T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
