9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 487X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R), for Appellant Shri Piyush Agrawal, Advocate, for Respondent ORDER Per: Anil G. Shakkarwar The present appeal filed by Revenue is directed against Order-in-Appeal No.388/CE/APPL/KNP/2008 dated 31.10.2008 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Kanpur. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent was registered with Central Excise with Certificate No.01/SKB/9 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce to the length of the product in question in view of Final Order No.275/99-D dated 24.03.1999 passed by this Tribunal in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Mumbai-III Versus Peico Electronics & Electricals reported at 1999 (111) E.L.T. 71 (Tribunal). On remand the Original Authority without conducting the re-examination of the length of the product directed by this Tribunal passed Order-i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said case law in relation to Peico Electronics & Electricals (supra) was not applicable in the present case. Therefore, such findings by Original Authority were not tenable in law and further decided the classification of the goods in question under Sub-heading No.7008.90 of the said scheduled to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Aggrieved by the said order Revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h process shall fall under classification under Sub-heading No.7008.90 and further contended that taking the submissions into consideration ld. Commissioner (Appeals) passed reasoned order classifying the said goods under Sub-heading No.7008. 10. 6. Having considered the rival contentions and on perusal of the facts on record, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by Commissioner (Appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
