9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (9) TMI 390X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the product at Serial No. 9. As regards the products at Serial Nos. 1-8, the appellants claimed classification under Heading 81.01, the department classified the same under Heading 82.09 and on a remand from the Commissioner (Appeals), the subsequent classification has been done under sub-heading No. 8485.90. Shri Nankani states that the appellants have not filed any appeal against the de novo decision classifying the products under sub-heading 8485.90. He clarified that they are seeking a relief against the order of remand through this appeal and claiming classification under 81.01 for these items. He further states that the appellants have also filed an affidavit before the Tribunal justifying an alternate claim for classification under H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce to technical literature and drawing as to whether the impugned goods at Serial Nos. 10 to 27 are parts of machine requiring classification under Chapter Heading 84.66 or they were part of tools requiring classification under Heading 82.09. The learned JDR cited the case of CCE, Vadodara v. Rapicut Carbides Ltd. - 2000 (119) E.L.T. 403 (Tribunal) classifying similar products under Heading 82.09. The learned counsel on the other hand stated that the ratio of the said case law cannot be applied as the order does not consider a claim for classification under Heading 84.66. He further states that in Rapicut, the Tribunal has preferred classification under Heading 82.09 rejecting the claim for classification under Heading 81.01 but did not hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isputed period and therefore, classification under one heading or the other is not of much significance from the point of view of duty liability. In any case, the appellants are not precluded from asking for change of classification for the future period and therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order of remand which has already been given effect to by a de novo decision by the original authority. 5. As far as the items at Serial Nos. 10 to 27 are concerned, we are inclined to agree with the learned Counsel that the cited decision of the Tribunal in the case of Rapicut (supra) has not considered the claim for classification under Heading 84.66 which the appellants are claiming in this case. After hearing both sides ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
