9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (3) TMI 328X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hemicals in specific proportion. The classification claimed by the assessees under Heading 28.15 was approved from time to time by the department. However, on 23-2-1990, a show cause notice was issued alleging that the classification claimed was not correct and that the correct classification would be under sub-heading 3402.90. Later, show cause notices dated 14-3-1990 and 20-9-1990 were issued seeking to recover differential duty on the re-classification proposed. The Assistant Collector, in his order, rejected the claim for classification under Heading 28.15 as also the alternate plea under 3823 and held that the goods were correctly classifiable under 3402.90. He confirmed the demand for differential duty also. This decision was upheld b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sal of the entry and the illustrations given thereunder, we find no substance in this argument. His reference to the sub-notes in the HSN also does not convince us. The ld. Advocate sought to rely upon the entry at (e) in the exclusion clause given. This clause includes water insoluble chemicals. The proceedings show that the contested goods were dissolved in water before its use. The sub-notes under the sub-heading cover the cleaning preparations for application in dairies and breweries also. The notes show that the claim of the ld. Advocate that the coverage does not extend beyond the product meant for domestic uses, is not supported by this note. 7. We have also carefully considered the submissions that Heading 38.23 would be attracted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... use i.e. for cleaning the articles prior to electrolysis were also placed on records. It is correct that the assessees had claimed a tariff heading different from what was warranted. But that fact cannot sustain the charge of misdeclaration as held by the Tribunal in the case of Echjay Industries Ltd. v. C.C.E. reported in 1994 (72) E.L.T. 98. Since all the relevant details were in the possession of the jurisdictional officers during the entire period covered under this appeal, we accept the contention of the ld. Advocate that the proviso to Section 11A was wrongly invoked and that the demand confirmed from July, 1986 to August, 1989 is hit by limitation. We, therefore, allow Appeal No. E/812/92-C, set aside the impugned order and direct c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
