2006 (1) TMI 325

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the Revenue. [Order per : T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)]. The issue involved in this appeal is the classification of the polyurethane washers manufactured by the appellants. According to the appellants, the impugned goods are classifiable under Chapter Heading 3921.00 of the CETA, 1985 as Elastomers. However, the Revenue classified them under Chapter Heading 3926.10. If the classification b .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ared for the appellants and Shri K.S. Bhat learned SDR for the Revenue. 3. The learned Advocate pointed out that when the department wanted to take the samples, the appellants stopped production. Thereafter, the departmental officers took the samples from M/s. IFB Automatic Seatings and Systems Ltd. The Mahazar under which the samples were taken was not relied upon in the show cause notice. Sinc .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Since, the samples have not been drawn in the manufacturers premises and also in view of the fact that the mahazar under which the samples were seized from a premise other than that of the manufacturer has not been relied on in their show cause notice, it would not be correct to decide the classification on the basis of the test result of such a sample. The demand cannot be sustained on such fli .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X