9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 118X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t nil rate of duty and sub heading no. 4810.01 on payment of duty. After visit the factory, it was found that the respondent is engaged in manufacture and clearance of coated paperboard, coated on one side with China clay and the same is classifiable under tariff sub heading no. 4810.10. It was also alleged that the respondent have received purchase orders from controller of stationery, Thiruvananthapuram for supply of 135 MT of white Pulp board/Cover paper in size 57 X 78 cm of 200 GSM 44.5 kg. Per ream of 500 sheets machine finished and M.G. White Duplex Board. The allegation of the revenue is that the said paper cleared against these purchase orders, the respondent have classified under tariff sub heading 4802.10 whereas the glazed i.e. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eared on payment of duty. This fact has been admitted by the authorised representative to the respondent in his statement dated 22.12.2004 and also admitted that they classified the goods as per the end use but the classification is not to be done as per end use as it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dunlop India Ltd. vs. UOI as reported in 1983 ELT 1566, 1579 (SC) and some other cases, therefore it is prayed that impugned order to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, the Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent supported the impugned order and submits that the allegation of the revenue is that the respondent has cleared coated paper. In fact, the samples were drawn at the time of visit of thei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cal examiner. This test reports have been placed on record by the respondent but the said test reports have not been considered while filing the appeal before this tribunal. 9. We further find that the Ld. Commissioner (A) has examined the issue in question in details has observed as under: That the following issues arises for decisions:- i. Whether the appellant supplied uncoated paper or paperboard to M/s Tamilnadeu text book corporation and kerala Stationery deptt. ii. Whether the paper of 200 gsm supplied by the appellant to these parties falls under the category of paper or paperboard. iii. Whether the paper supplied by them falls under the category of writing or printing paper falling under sub-heading 4802.10 or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled to understand the non availability of the test report of the samples which were drawn for a specific purpose for ascertaining as to whether the said paper is coated or uncoated. The appellant have, however, produced the test report of the samples drawn by the Department from the paper supplied to these consignees which categorically states that the "sample is a cut piece of uncoated sheet of paper board". As the test report relates to the paper I therefore, hold that the paper cleared by the Appellant falls under the description "writing/printing paper for printing of Educational Text Books which is appropriately classifiable under sub heading 4802.10 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and set aside the demand for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
