9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1150X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... merit in the impugned order in classifying the product as motor vehicle parts, which is classifiable as casting under respective sub-headings as claimed by the Appellant. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. E/1511/2010 & E/958/2011 - A/85566-85567/2019 - Dated:- 15-3-2019 - DR. D.M. MISRA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) And MR. P ANJANI KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri V.S. Sejpal, Advocate for Appellant Shri M.P. Damle, AC (AR) for Respondent ORDER Per: Dr. D.M. Misra Heard both sides. 2. These two appeals are filed against Order-in-Appeal No. SB(57)57/MV/2010 dated 24.5.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai-V. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Another attempt was made to adjudicate the case without making any visit to the premises of the appellant and studying the process of manufacture. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demands observing that the goods are classifiable as Motor vehicle parts. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who in turn, upheld the said order. Hence, the present appeal. 4. At the outset, learned Advocate Shri V.S. Sejpal for the appellant submits that the classification lists were provisionally approved. Further, he has submitted that complying with the direction of this Tribunal, they have produced end use certificate from various customers, which are enclosed at pages 165 to 170 of the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that in the interest of justice, the matter should go back to the adjudicating authority to re-adjudicate the matter after ascertaining the process undertaken by the appellant and in the light of the decision in the case of Shivaji Works P. Ltd. (supra). We, therefore, remand both the maters to the Assistant Commissioner for re-adjudicating the same. The appellants will be at liberty to adduce the evidence which they deem fit within two months of receipt of the order. The appeals are thus allowed by way of remand. 7. Pursuant to the said direction, initially the Asstt. Commissioner has visited their factory and did not find any facility for machining, grinding etc. Even though, the adjudicating authority subsequently could not visit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
