9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (4) TMI 308X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... )]. Briefly stated the facts of the case are as follows :- 1.1 The appellant firm herein is a manufacturer of Transformers and Battery Eliminators. The Transformers were removed from their factory by classifying them under Tariff Heading 85.04 and the Battery Eliminators, according to the appellants, were classifiable under Tariff Heading 85.29, inasmuch as the Eliminators actually manufac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the demand of duty for a sum of Rs. 84,814.31 was confirmed against the appellants herein. 1.3 On due adjudication by the Commissioner, a penalty of Rs. 25,000.00 was also imposed on the appellants. Hence this appeal before the Tribunal. 2. Learned Advocate, Shri K.K. Banerjee submits on behalf of the appellant firm, that the Battery Eliminator is not a static converter. It merely eliminates t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... udgment in the case reported in 1996 (88) E.L.T. 163 (Tribunal). He, therefore, prays for allowing the appeal. 3. Opposing the contentions, learned SDR, Shri T. Premkumar submits that marketability was never in question before the lower authorities. Apart from that, he also submits that no dispute about the marketability can arise because the appellant firm has sold the goods to M/s. Pieco Elect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... correctly imposed. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions of both sides. In view of the submissions of the learned S.D.R., we hold that the Battery Eliminator has the function of static converter. The submission of the learned Advocate that Battery Eliminator is a part of the Transistor Set and therefore, should be assessed under Tariff Heading 85.29 is not correct in the facts and circ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
