9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (3) TMI 346X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies. However, liberty had been granted to the appellants to seek restoration of appeal after obtaining clearance certificate from the Committee of Secretaries. 2. It is contended that on the day of hearing the appellants had produced the clearance certificate. However, the same had not been linked and as a result, the appeals had been dismissed. 3. Heard ld. Advocate Shri K.P. Kumar points out to the clearance certificate and seeks for restoration of the appeals. He also submits that two other appeals of the same appellants are listed today and he submits that as the issue is common, all the appeals could be taken up together for disposal as per law. He points out to another Miscellaneous application by which the appellants seek to cha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Item No. 68 of Central Excise Tariff. The Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the appellants plea that counter veiling duty is not leviable as the item is not manufactured in India. He has further rejected the plea that the imported item cannot be classified under Item 68 as Tariff Item 68 is not a distinct class of goods. While rejecting the prayer for non-imposition of counter veiling duty, ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has taken into consideration the judgment made on this issue by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Khandelwal Metal and Engineering v. Union of India as reported in 1985 (20) E.L.T. 222. 8. Reiterating the submissions made by the appellants before the Commissioner (Appeals) ld. Advocate points out that the iss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bunal having decided all the cases in the light of judgment of Khandelwal Metal Industires these appeals are required to be disposed of in the light of that judgment. Hence the prayer for keeping the matter pending is not accepted, further for the reason that these appeals are of 1986. 11. We notice from the judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Khandelwal Metal Industries that Counter veiling duty is leviable even on goods which are not manufactured in India. As regards the prayer that imported item is not manufactured in India and the same is not required to be classified under TI 68 as they do not form a class of goods by themselves, we notice that this issue has also been dealt with exhaustively by Hon ble Supreme Court in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
