2001 (9) TMI 732

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... a Wadhwa, Member (J)]. After hearing Shri B.N. Chattopadhyay, ld. Consultant appearing for the appellants, and Shri D.K. Bhowmik, ld. JDR for the Revenue, we find that the present appeal can be disposed of on the point of limitation. 2. Vide the impugned order, the Commissioner has confirmed the demand of duty against the appellants and has imposed penalties upon them on the findings that .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the same were being classified under sub-heading 8425.00. In this connection, he draws our attention to the various classification lists filed by them declaring the goods as Hydraulic Pit Props and claiming classification of the same under Heading 84.25. All the classifications in question were approved by the proper officer. As such, he submits that there can be no case for invocation of the lon .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n question. In fact, it is seen that up to a certain point, both the headings attracted the same rate of duty. In one of the classification lists effective from 1-3-89, the appellants have initially specified the Heading as 7308.40 and thereafter, it was cut by hand and substituted by a Heading 8425.00. No objection was raised by the Revenue and the goods were approved under 8425.00. As such, it i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X