9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (11) TMI 444X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri M.P. Sendo, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : C. Satapathy, Member (T)]. - Shri A. Hidayatulla, learned advocate for the appellants states that these four appeals are against a common order confirming a duty demand of Rs. 33,43,486.25 Ps. and imposing a penalty of Rs. 50,000/-. The period of demand relates to 31-3-1992 to 31-7-1993. The appellants manufacture table tops from duty paid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... altered by the jurisdictional officers at origin. The classification of the inputs cannot be changed to 4823.19 at the receiving end and the adjudicating Commissioner is in error in reclassifying the inputs as paper/paperboard and not as an article of paper/paperboard. The learned advocate cites the following case laws in support of this arguments :- 1. Tata Oil Mills v. C.C.E., Cochin - 199 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is paper and paperboard. Shri M.K. Gupta, learned Jt. C.D.R. in his intervention states that the Apex Court has decided the classification of decorative laminates under Chapter 39 and that the same should be kept in view. He has later on submitted the following case laws :- 1. C.C.E., Hyderabad v. Bakelite Hylam Ltd. - 1997 (91) E.L.T. 13 (S.C.) 2. C.C.E. v. Wood Polymers Ltd. - 1998 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 'common parlance test' helps the cause of the appellants rather than the case of the department. In view of the above, we have no hesitation in holding that the Commissioner is clearly in error in her determination that the restriction will apply to the appellant's case. We, therefore, set aside the impugned orders, allow the appeals with consequential relief. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
