2001 (6) TMI 345

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... awal, Member (T)]. In this appeal, filed by M/s. Chand Industries, the issue involved is whether Bobbins are classifiable under Heading 87.14 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act as parts of Motor Vehicles as claimed by the Appellants or under sub-heading 3923.40 as confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned Order. 2. Shri K.L. Handa, learned Consultant, submitt .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s) has classified them under sub-heading 3923.90 and as they were not put to notice for bobbins to be classified under the said sub-heading the impugned Order should be set aside. He also relied upon the decision in the case of C.C.E., Bombay v. Neoluxe India Pvt. Ltd., 2001 (128) E.L.T. 298 (Tribunal). 3. Countering the arguments, Shri R.D. Negi, learned SDR, submitted that Note 2(p) to Chapter .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the Appellants were put to notice that the impugned product was not classifiable under Chapter 87 and was classifiable under Chapters 39 as articles of plastics. There is only change in the Heading and as the Chapter remains the same the Order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is not beyond the scope of appeal. 4. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. We agree with the submiss .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X