9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (2) TMI 276X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ff Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the `Tariff'), Metallic Rings under sub-heading No. 7308.90 of the Tariff and Nylon Travellers under sub-heading No. 3922.90 of the Tariff. The Revenue had classified all these three products under Heading No. 84.45 of the Tariff. 2. Shri Gopal Prasad, Advocate, appearing for the appellants stated that in no case these products were classifiable under Heading No. 84.45 in view of the separate Heading No. 84.48 for the parts and accessories suitable for use solely or principally with the machines of Heading No. 84.45. He was of the view that even on the reasoning of the Revenue, the goods were classifiable under Heading No. 84.48 and not under Heading No. 84.45 as decided by the adjudicating and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shuttle changing mechanisms); parts and accessories suitable for use solely or principally with the machines of this heading or of Heading No. 84.44, 84.45, 84.46 or 84.47 (for example, spindles and spindle flyers, card clothing, combs, extruding nipples, shuttles, healds and heard-frames, hosiery needles). 5. We have been shown the samples of the products in question by the learned advocate for the appellants. He has also referred to the product description as in the Textile Terms and Definitions (9th Edition of the Textile Institute, Manchester). After seeing the sample of the product and the technical literature, we are of the view that the classification under other article of iron or steel or as article of plastic is ruled out. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies. For this purpose, he wanted to adduce some additional evidence. Alternatively, he had prayed for remand of the matter on the ground that the classification under Heading No. 84.48 of the Tariff was neither before the adjudicating authority nor before the appellate authority and thus there was no occasion for the appellants to establish that these goods were accessories and not parts. 9. As the classification under Heading No. 84.48 was not before the lower authorities, we remand this matter to the jurisdictional Asstt. Commissioner of Central Excise for de novo consideration, in the light of our above observations and after giving an opportunity to the appellants and then pass a speaking order, as per law. 10. In the light ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
