9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1247X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t decision reported in [2007 (6) TMI 222 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS] as also the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court decision in GURUDEV OVERSEAS LTD. Versus CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE & CUS., NEW DELHI [2007 (11) TMI 317 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH] vide which the Circular No.8/2006-Cus dated 17.01.2006 was quashed and set aside, vide which that said decisions of High Courts were set aside and the matters were remanded back to the lower authorities, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the issue - matter to the original adjudicating authority for fresh decision in the light of the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court - Supreme Court has held in the said decision that Such orders are required t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant through their Advocate, Shri. A.K. Babbar Shri. Surindra Kumar relied upon the Chapter Note 8 of Section XV of Customs Tariff Act, in support to their plea and contended that inasmuch as goods in question are old, used and cut pieces of the rail lines and are not usable as such, they have to be held as waste and scrap. They also relied upon the Board s Circular no.1/2005-CUS dated 11.01.2005. Further, reliance was placed upon DGFT clarification issued vide letter dated 02.02.2012 holding that the rail lines having length up to 1.5 meter are classifiable under chapter heading 72.04. 6. Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant, drew our attention to the Tribunal decision in the case of Indo Deutsche Trade Links Vs. CC (Import ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch the Circular No.8/2006-Cus dated 17.01.2006 was quashed and set aside, vide which that said decisions of High Courts were set aside and the matters were remanded back to the lower authorities, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the issue. 8. We find that the sole issue required to be decided in the present appeals are as to whether the rail cut length below 1.5 meters are to be assessed under chapter heading 72.04, as claimed by the assessee or the same are classifiable under chapter heading 73.02, as contended by the Revenue. We note that the Board Circular No.8/2006-cus dated 17.01.2006, supporting the revenue s views was quashed by the Hon ble Madras High Court as also by Hon ble Punjab and Haryana High Court. The said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
