9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 684X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g 1301.10? - Held that: - this Tribunal in the appellant’s own case M/s Hindustan Gum & Chemicals Ltd. Versus CCE, Ahmedabad [2012 (7) TMI 748 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI], after analyzing the process of manufacture, relevant tariff entry and HSN Notes concluded that the product TKP is classifiable under Chapter sub-heading13.01 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 - the matter is remanded to the adjudicati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rind Kernal Powder (TKP) classifying it under Chapter sub-heading 1101.00 of CETA,1985 attracting 'nil' rate of duty. Alleging that the said product is classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 1301.10, attracting duty @8%, demand notices had been issued to them for recovery of total duty of ₹ 26,63,075/- from time to time, with proposal for penalty. On adjudication, the demands were confirmed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e classification of the product under Heading 13.01 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, for calculation of duty, the cum-duty price benefit was extended to the Respondent and also it is observed that the demand cannot be confirmed for extended period of limitation. Therefore, he prays that the matter may be remanded to the adjudicating authority to re-compute the demand in the light of the said ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d we allow the same. The Revised duty liability is to be worked out by the adjudicating authority. 26. To sum up it is held that the impugned goods are manufactured goods and its classification was under sub-heading 1301.10 of the Central Excise Tariff. However demands invoking the extended period of time limit is not maintainable. Further the prayer for granting benefit of cum-duty realization a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
