2006 (3) TMI 413

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rder per : Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President]. The adjudicating authority confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 16,110/- and imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- on the respondents herein on the ground that they were liable to pay duty on the clearance of ink for marker pens which were cleared without payment of duty under notification 83/90. The manufacturer was availing the benefit of notification 6 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ink was rejected relying upon the test report which called the product a type of ink . The Assistant Commissioner therefore held that the product, ink, was classifiable under CET sub-heading 3215.90 and chargeable to duty @ 18%. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the contention of the assessee that since the show cause notice only referred to the intermediate product, ink, as a product falling .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... oduct with specific reference to its nature either as a writing ink or an ink other than writing ink, before arriving at the classification thereof and the subsequent demand thereon. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the adjudicating authority for the purpose of drawing samples, getting them tested by the Chemical Examiner for determination as to the nature of the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X