9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (10) TMI 1003X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal is filed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. P-III/27/03, dated 17-3-2003 by which the order of the original authority confirming demand of ₹ 24,870/- was upheld. 2. Heard both sides extensively. 3. The appellant is a 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of cotton yarn. The appellant applied for CT-3 certificate for procuring mobile storage system under Notification ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mobile storage system was manufactured by M/s. Godrej Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd., and the same stood classified by them as office equipment falling under 7216.50/7326.90. The attempt of the officer-in-charge of the appellant s unit to re-classify the item after issuing the CT-3 certificate is not justified. 5. The learned SDR submits that mobile storage system is not operated by placing it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e not covered by the exemption notification. 6. We have carefully considered the submissions from both sides and perused the records. 7. The show cause notice is proposing denial of the benefit of exemption notification on a vague ground that mobile storage system is like an office furniture and cannot be considered as office equipment. We notice that Notification 1/95 grants exemption in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... harge of manufacturing unit. The decisions relied on by the learned SDR in the case of Methodex Systems Ltd. and other cases relate to classification of goods like filing cabinet manufactured by respective parties. Without going into the merits of the classification of the impugned mobile storage system, we have no doubt that the officer-in-charge of the appellant s unit has no jurisdiction to re- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
