9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (12) TMI 252X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Respondent. [Order per : Lajja Ram, Member (T)]. - These are four appeals filed by the Revenue being aggrieved with the common order-in-appeal dated 31-8-1987 passed by the Collector, Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi. The matter relates to the classification of the products popularly known as 'Patta/Patti' which were classifiable under Item No. 26AA(lA) of the old CET prior to 1-8-1983 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terated the grounds of appeal. 4. We have carefully considered the matter. There is no dispute that the goods in question were known as Patta/Patti. The Tribunal in a number of decisions had taken the view that the products known as Patta/Patti were not strips for the purpose of classification under CET. In the case of C.C.E., Jaipur and Others v. Kamlesh Industries and Others, 1995 (60) ECR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder the present CETA has also been held to be under Heading 7208.00 covering the pieces roughly shaped by rolling or forging of iron or steel not elsewhere specified and its classification under Heading 7211.00 covering hoops strips and skelp of iron or steel is not favoured by the Tribunal in its decision in the case of CCE, Chandigarh v. Jagat Metals & Jaiswal Metals (P) Ltd. reported in 1993 ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as strips under the tariff and in this view of the matter, we see no reason to interfere with the orders passed by the Collector (Appeals) which are accordingly upheld. The appeals preferred by the Department are, therefore, rejected. 5. In the case of C.C.E., Chandigarh v. Jagat Metals & Jaiswal Metals (P) Ltd. and Others, 1993 (44) ECR 212 (T), the same view has been taken that patta/patti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
