9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (5) TMI 189X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Collector of Customs, Ahmednagar dated 28-1-1988 under F. No. VGN (30) 1/TD/87 462. The facts of the case are That the respondent M/s. Kinetic Engineering Ltd., Ahmednagar, imported Piston Assemblies under the Bill of Entry No. 2150, dated 3-3-1985. They were declared as such in Col. No. 6 and assessed under T.I. 34A for the purpose of CVD. The duty at the rate of 20% ad valorem + 5% Spl. Excise duty were paid as applicable to parts of motor vehicles falling under T.I. 34A. On clearance from Customs, facility under Rule 56 A of Central Excise Rule was claimed, under Notification No. 249/82, dated 1-11-1982. Notification No. 247/82 exempts Motor Vehicles from so much of excise duty as has been paid on Motor Vehicles parts under T.I. 34A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s intentionally paid duty under T.I. 34A in order to get the benefit of facility of Proforma Credit, which otherwise would not have been available. Collector (Appeals) has not considered the observation of Asst. Collector that the goods imported were in fact the Piston Assemblies falling under T.I. 68, and not the parts/components falling under T.I. 34A, thereby erred in paying that T.I. 68 goods were eligible for set off under Notification No. 201/79-CE. Impugned Order requires review. 3. Respondents has urged that Customs Authority classified the goods imported by the said company under the Bill of Entry No. 498/2-2-1985 and 2158/3-3-1988, under T.I. 34A and assessed at 20% CVD (ADV equivalent to Basic Duty) + 5% SED. The respondent on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r in original, impugned order, show cause notice reply, written submission, appeal memorandum and documents produced and Rule 56A of Central Excise Rules and Section 11A of Central Excise Act and Notification referred. It is held in the Rulings in 1988 (34) E.L.T. 702 (Tribunal) = 1988 (14) ECR 349 in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Patna v. TELCO Jamshedpur, the contention that Central Excise Authority, Jamshedpur have jurisdiction to change the classification of the goods ordered by the Authority at Madras, Nasik and Rajkot even if they felt the classification ordered by the latter was incorrect cannot be accepted , and 1984 (16) E.L.T. 462 in the case of Jay Industries v. Collector of Central Excise Hyderabad, Central Excise A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
