9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (7) TMI 322X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : Gowri Shankar, Member (T)]. M/s. IVP Limited, the respondent to this appeal, had filed a classification list No. 1 of 1994 with effect from 1-3-1994 showing the classification of the product as vanaspati manufactured by it under heading 1504.00 of the tariff indicating the rate of duty and the notification. The classification list was approved by the jurisdictional Superintendent. 2. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... trade notice 51/92 dated 11-11-1992 (issuing Commissioner is not specified). The Commissioner (Appeals) said that the Superintendent could approve tlie classification list only in two circumstances - when only the number of notification is changed on account of budget etc. without affecting the classification of the goods earlier approved, and, when the rate of duty in the notification is changed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appeal does not challenge the Commissioner (Appeals) view that the proper officer, designated for the purpose of rule 173B was the Assistant Commissioner. Nor does it dispute the correctness of the statement that the function of the Superintendent was limited to according approval in the two sets of circumstances specified by him. We must therefore take this statement to be correct. It would th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Superintendent did not approve the classification of the product and his act of approval of the list did not extend to this cannot be interfered with. 6. We also cannot agree that this is a technical objection. Questions relating to jurisdiction cannot be brushed aside as technical. 7. We therefore see no reason to interfere and dismiss the application. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Central Exci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
