2000 (10) TMI 413

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... J)]. In this appeal, the Revenue has challenged the validity of the impugned order dated 26-4-1995 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), who upheld the order in original of the Assistant Commissioner regarding classification of the product in question (Tarfelt) under sub-heading 5909 of the CETA as claimed by the respondents and availability of benefit of Notification No. 5 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... revenue who upheld the same through the impugned order. 3. Feeling dissatisfied with the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals), Revenue has come up in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. We have heard both the sides. 5. It has been fairly conceded by both the sides that the issue regarding the classification of the product in question - (Tarfelt), and the admissibility of the benefit of Noti .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X