2014 (4) TMI 909

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... partment itself as to the proper classification of goods i.e. whether they are to be cleared under tariff heading 8443 32 70 or 8443 32 60 - One Member of the CESTAT was of the opinion that the extended period of limitation was not properly invoked, is in the opinion of this Court sufficient for Tribunal to have made an order granting substantial relief - This Court is of the opinion that the impu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ds falling under CT 8443 31 00/8443 32 60 which provides for nil rate of duty. The department was of the opinion, upon investigation initiated in the meanwhile, that the goods were classifiable under heading 8843.3970 which attracted duty at the rate of 7.8%. Show cause notice was issued; the extended period of limitation of 5 years under section 28 of the Customs Act was also invoked. The show ca .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ld not interfere with the order of the CESTAT which is an interim one and has balanced the interests of the authorities. It was pointed out that the appellant has been given substantial relief to the extent of 50% waiver of pre-deposit. 3. This Court has considered the submissions. It is evident from the materials on record that there appears to be a conflict within the department itself as to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X