9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (2) TMI 569X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er (T)]. The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Hydraulics Ltd. is whether seat damper is classifiable under the Heading 87.08 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act as claimed by them or under Heading 94.01 as confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned order. 2. Shri K. Mani, learned Consultant submitted that seat damper manufactured by them is akin to s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and as per the Supreme Court decision in C.C.E., Shillong v. Wood Craft Products Ltd. - 1995 (77) E.L.T. 23 (S.C.), HSN is a safe guide to be relied in the classification matters. Alternatively, the ld. Consultant submits that impugned products will be classifiable under 73.26 of the CETA, 1985. 3. Shri G. Sreekumar Menon, ld. SDR submitted that seat dampers is not shock absorber as claimed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... table, it does not mean that it becomes a shock absorber. As in our opinion both the rival tariff headings are not applicable to the impugned goods, the matter has to go back to the adjudicating authority to consider its classification under the correct heading. This was the view expressed by the Supreme Court in the case of Voltas Ltd. - 1997 (91) E.L.T. 261 (S.C.) wherein the Apex Court observed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
