9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (12) TMI 173X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e walls; and they had claimed benefit of Notification No. 1/93. The item was classified under Tariff Item 82 and the benefit of Notification No. 1/93 was allowed in the approved classification list. However in computing the exemption limit the Department had committed errors. As such they had filed another classification list in which they had claimed that the product was classifiable under 32.14 and for the purposes of computing the exemption limit the goods in the nature of machinery items classifiable under Heading 84.37 as well as the quantity of goods which had been exported was required to be excluded. 3. They had also furnished their literature and the technical opinion of a retired Chemical Examiner of the Department. 4. Their c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orth Rs. 5 lacs had been exported he drew attention to the particulars of the GP 2 No. 1 in the chart appended by them to their application which shows a figure of Rs. 5,85,000/- against the entry dated 9-11-1993. He would also like to draw attention to the gate pass showing the clearance of the machinery classifiable under 84.37. 9. He would also like to cite the order reported in 1990 (49) E.L.T. 457 in support of his contention that the pleas which were raised are required to be taken into consideration. 10. Ld. DR stated that the authorities below have taken into consideration the report of the Consultant said to be retired Chemical Examiner, the classification list, and the description and particulars given in the classification li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he dispute on classification is still pending in the tribunal and this may be noted. In response to a query from the bench ld. Counsel clarified that the A.C. has mentioned that the present demand is consequential to decision regarding classification taken earlier. 16. We have considered the above submissions. We observe that prima facie the classification of the product appears to be arguable on merits. At the same time it is correct that all pleas raised before the authorities are required to be duly considered by them. We also observe that whereas the ld. DR has stated that at the original stage the product was considered as a type of paint on the basis of the appellant s own literature. The department s chemical examiner has described ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
