2015 (4) TMI 961

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he Tribunal should have been a speaking order dealing with the reasoning given by the Commissioner and stating as to why the said reasoning was faulty. - issue as to whether the product is marketable or not was not even raised by the respondent in reply to the show cause notice nor was it argued before the Commissioner and therefore on that ground the Tribunal could not have allowed the appeal. - .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ng 8907.00 which attracts duty @ 20%. This resulted in issuance of show cause notice dated 4.1.1996. The respondent submitted that its product should not be classified under Chapter 8907.00. After giving opportunity to the respondent to file reply and hearing the respondent, the Commissioner passed the Order-in-Original dated 12.3.1996 affirming the contents of the show cause notice and holding .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n case, the Tribunal was not agreeing with the order of the Commissioner, the order of the Tribunal should have been a speaking order dealing with the reasoning given by the Commissioner and stating as to why the said reasoning was faulty. Mr. Jaideep Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing for the Department, has argued, and rightly so, that the issue as to whether the product is marketable or .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X