1997 (6) TMI 89

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s of the case are that the appellants imported synthetic waste which was assessed to duty on 30th June, 1984. The duty was paid on 2nd July, 1984. Subsequently, on 1st January, 1985 the Department raised a less charge demand on account of the allegation that auxiliary duty chargeable on the goods was not levied and collected and that additional duty chargeable under Tariff Item No. 18-IV of the th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... since the appellants did not produce any evidence to prove that explanation under Tariff Item 18-IV did not cover their product. Therefore he upheld the allegation of the Department that the product imported by the appellant was classifiable under Tariff Item No. 18-IV of the then Central Excise Tariff. Against this order of the Ld. Collector (Appeals) the appellants have filed the present appeal .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ce to prove that the explanation under Tariff Item No. 18-IV did not cover the goods was not produced by them. Therefore the goods were classifiable under Tariff Item No. 18-IV of the then Central Excise Tariff. 3. On the question of limitation the Ld. JDR submitted that the goods were assessed on 30th June, 1984 but the duty was paid on 2nd July, 1984. Thus the demand was within six month. He s .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X