9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 285X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claim is correct or not. The Commissioner (Appeals) has not examined the finding on classification given by the original adjudicating authority on the ground that the said findings are beyond the scope of show-cause notice. We find that the said assertion is not proper as the show-cause notice had indeed sought to classify certain solvents under 3814 also. Matter remanded to Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the issue of classification of the product on merit - appeal allowed by way of remand. - E/1314/07 & E/CO/808/08 - A/90353-90354/17/EB - Dated:- 31-10-2017 - Shri Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) And Shri Raju, Member (Technical) Shri S.V. Nair, AC(AR) for the appellant None for the respondent ORDER Per: Raju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of duty and therefore the said value cannot be included for the purpose of determining the clearances under the small scale exemption 8/2002 and 8/2003. 4. We have gone through the rival submissions. We find that impugned order remands the matter to original adjudicating authority with following direction:- a) I order the adjudicating authority to exclude the value of clearance of Turpentine oil falling under Chapter 3805.19 attracting nil rate of duty from the confirmed amount of `39,13,103/- during the period of dispute April, 2002 to January 2004. b) I further order the adjudicating authority to verify the original duty paying documents for admissibility/ allowance of cenvat credit on inputs used in the manufactured and cle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The original adjudicating authority has sought to classify the Turpentine oil manufactured by the respondents under 3814.00 as against the claim of 3805.19 of the respondents. The original adjudicating authority describes the product as Turpentine oil manufactured by mixing different solvent hydro carbon and non-hydro carbon for use as solvent. The show-cause notice does not segregate the value of goods cleared under different heading. The Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the show-cause notice mentions that Turpentine oil manufactured by the respondents would fall under 3805.19. A perusal of the show-cause notice shows that there is no such assertion. The only reference to various headings under which goods are manufactured appears in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 38.14 3814.00O rganic composite solvents and thinners, not elsewhere specified or included; prepared paint or varnish removers 16% The original adjudicating authority has distinguished the product manufactured by the appellants from Turpentine oil and sought to classify the same as solvents as observing as follows:- 27. While CSH 3805.19 of the CETA, 1985 provides for classification of Gum, wood or sulphate turpentine oil produced by distillation or other treatment of coniferous woods... CSH 3814.00 of the CETA, 1985 provides for classification of organic composite solvents and thinners, not elsewhere specified; prepared paint or vanish removers HSN explanation to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity has given his reasoning for classifying the product under 3814. In these circumstances, we find that the impugned order wrongly holds that the original adjudicating authority has gone beyond the scope of show-cause notice. Since the original adjudicating authority has given his reasoning for classifying the product under 3814 it was for Commissioner (Appeals) to decide if the said claim is correct or not. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has not examined the finding on classification given by the original adjudicating authority on the ground that the said findings are beyond the scope of show-cause notice. We find that the said assertion is not proper as the show-cause notice had indeed sought to classify certain solvents under 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
