2019 (1) TMI 662

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... use notice to decide on classification and that this submission had not been dealt with by the Tribunal - Held that:- It would appear that the Tribunal in its order upheld the demand as computed by the two lower authorities in the absence of any justification on the part of the appellant that there should be a contrary finding. The question of having exceeded the jurisdiction in re-classifying the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 96-85197/2018 dated 31st January 2018 in appeal no. E/102 & 638/2009, of mistake claimed to be apparent on record. 2. Learned Counsel for applicant submits that, in fifth paragraph, the impugned order has been upheld while at the same time classifying the disputed goods, viz., 'trimmings and end-cuts' arising during the course of manufacture of 'stitched bonded fabrics of glass' to be 'waste and .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ding no. '7001 0090' thereby upholding the order of the original authority. It is also observed that in the other order, which was also impugned before the Tribunal, the first appellate authority had held the goods to be of a different heading but, at the same time, upheld the order of the original authority to confirm demand of duty as well as the imposition of penalty. 5. It would, therefore, a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X