9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (2) TMI 203X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... take a stand that the adjudicating authority should have verified the process of manufacture - There is no claim by Revenue regarding composition of good, so exemption to “surface active preparation” u/not. 101/66 can’t be denied - E/3145/2001-Mum - A/289/2008-WZB/C-I/(EB), - Dated:- 26-2-2008 - Justice S.N. Jha, President and Shri K.K. Agarwal, Member (T) Shri Pramod Kumar, JDR, for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the products were classifiable under Tariff item 15AA only. While doing so the Tribunal relied upon the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Silicon (I) Pvt. Ltd. reported in 1996 (88) E.L.T. 3 (S.C). Since the products are identical to the one discussed in the decision of the Tribunal which has not been challenged the respondents claim that the issue is squarely covered by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the adjudicating authority should have verified the process of manufacture before deciding the matter. We further note that the Tribunal's decision dated 9-8-1999 has discussed the process in detail adopted by the respondents and nothing to the contrary is coming from the appeal filed by the Revenue. In view of the above, we upheld the classification under Tariff item 15AA. 5. The 2nd issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... preparation manufactured by the respondents. We further note that the respondents have in their classification list claimed exemption under Notification 101/66 and therefore the burden to prove that preparation did not contain principal active ingredients less than 5% as claimed by them was on Revenue. There is no claim by Revenue that the percentage was more than 5%. In view of this we find no f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
