2004 (1) TMI 462

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Consultant, for the Appellant. Shri Uma Shankar, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)]. The appellants herein manufacture Seamless C.S. Pipe PTFE-TEFLON/PVDF/PP and other plastic lined products as well as C.S./cast ductile iron fabricated steel pipe fittings etc. and classified them under CETA sub-heading 3917.00 of the schedule to the Central Excise T .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... No. E/1083/96-Bom. On remand the Assistant Commissioner re-adjudicated the case and confirmed duty of Rs. 22,32,245/-. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 23-9-96 upheld the Assistant Commissioner s order; against such order the appellants have preferred Appeal No. E/2400/96-Bom. 2. We have heard both sides. We find that the issue of classification was first decided by the Collector (App .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , cited by them, was not considered by the Tribunal and applying this circular, the goods in question would not fall for classification under Chapter 73 as the value of plastic material was pre-dominant and therefore the products should have been held to be classifiable under Chapter 39 as claimed. We are unable to accept this arguments for two reasons : (1) It is not open to the appellan .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X