9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 738X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter arriving at correct classification. The adjudicating authority classified the goods under Chapter 59.07 which was not agreed upon by this Tribunal, therefore adjudicating authority was directed to decide correct classification. The applicant cannot say now that remand for reconsideration of classification is wrong. ROM application dismissed. - Application No. E/ROM/85117/2018 In Appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in para 22 of the adjudication order held that products of the appellant are not classifiable under Chapters 54 or 55. The department has not challenged the said order. Therefore there is an error apparent on the face of the records in holding that Adjudicating Authority has not considered the aspect of classification under Chapter 52 or 54. 4. He further submits that direction to examine the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of appeal categorically made grounds on classification which are reproduced below: 2. The Appellants submit that, the Commissioner has illegally held the product as falling under CSH No.5907.12, which admittedly excludes fabrics covered partially with textile flock, dust, powdered cork or the like arid bearing designs resulting from the statements as per Chapter Note No.5(C} of Chapter 59. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing upon predominance in terms of Chp. Note No. 5(c) of Chp.59. It is therefore submitted that the Commissioner has erred in relying upon the specific entry of fabrics under the Chp. Heading No. 59.07, for the purpose of determination of classification list and therefore the impugned order is not legal and proper. 3. The Appellants submit that, the Commissioner illegally held that the impugn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rong. 7. As regard judgment of Precision Rubber Industries P. Ltd. (supra), firstly this judgment was not placed before the bench during argument, moreover, various other judgments were cited wherein the classification was reconsidered at a later stage being law point. Therefore we do not find any error apparent on record, hence the ROM application is dismissed. ( Pronounced in Court 25/05/2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
