9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (5) TMI 310X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hapter sub-heading 3921.19 of the First Schedule of the C.E. Tariff Act and the provisional assessment was finalised. However, in the order-in-original demands have not been raised except determining the classification. The appellants had contested the classification under the Heading 3921.19 and that they claim the item to be an article and to be classified under the sub-heading 3923.19. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected their plea on the ground that the items were in rolls being in sheet form and not having assumed the shape of an article to be classified under the sub-heading 3921.19 of the CE Tariff Act. He also taken into consideration the Chapter note 10, under Chapter 39, which reads as, follows : In Heading Nos. 39.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the duty as cum-duty. (a) Flowlines Engg. (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Madras, reported in 2001 (137) E.L.T. 1423 (Tri.) (b) National Steel Industries v. CCE, Chandigarh, reported in 1999 (111) E.L.T. 80 (Tri.) (c) V.P. Packaging v. CCE, Calcutta, reported in 2001 (137) E.L.T. 583 (Tri.) The appellants have also file a written brief. 3. Ld. Dr. Shri C. Mani submits that the order passed by the authorities classifying the items under sub-heading 3921.19 is a correct classification as admittedly the item has not assumed a form of an article. Therefore, the claim of classification under Chapter Heading 39.23 does not arise. Note 10 of Chapter 39 is also specific that plates, sheets, film, foil and strip fall under Heading Nos. 39. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pra). The citations referred by the appellants in the case of Fenner (India) Ltd. v. CCE, Madurai reported in 1995 (77) E.L.T. 8 (S.C.), is distinguishable as the classification pertained to conveyor belts, which has assumed a form of an article. Therefore, the said citation is not applicable to this case. We are satisfied with the classification adopted by the authorities under chapter sub-heading 3921.19 of the Central Excise Tariff as a correct one and requires to be confirmed. In so far as the claim of Modvat benefit and to treat the duty as cum-duty is concerned, both the authorities have been dealt with this point. Therefore, we are remanding this issue for reconsideration of their claim and to determine the correct duty amount in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
