9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 918X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... git codes were not incorporated in the Central Excise Tariff. There are no doubt that in Sl. No. 246 of Notification No. 6/2002 (supra), heading 1517 was required to be substituted for 1508.90. This is also clear on looking at the sub-heading in CETH 1508 prior to amendment, which was only for Linoxyn and Other and after amendment, the sub-heading for Other was spread over to cover all tariff items except 1517 10 22 (Linoxyn) - Further, the interpretation of the above Notification would be clear when Notification No. 5/2005-C.E.(N.T.) is read together with the note underneath the same wherein, it has been explained that the said Notification is intended to take care of technical changes adopted in the Central Excise Tariff numberi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellants had claimed nil rate of Basic Customs Duty (BCD) under Customs Notification No. 26/2000 (List 5) and Countervailing Duty (CVD) under Central Excise Notification No. 4/2005 (Sl. No. 2) or Sl. No. 246 of Central Excise Notification No. 6/2002. The assessable value of the goods was Rs.6,84,970/- and Rs.60,69,278/- in respect of Bill-of-Entry No. 882999 dated 28.09.2005 and Bill-of-Entry No. 951898 dated 25.01.2006 respectively and the imported goods were cleared under nil duty. 1.2 The Revenue, entertaining a doubt that the benefit of Notification No. 4/2005 (Sl. No. 2) was applicable only for those goods falling under CTH 1516, Demand Notices were issued to the appellants proposing to demand the differential duty under Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , appeared for the appellants. The contentions of the Ld. Advocate are as under: - (i) Prior to 28.02.2005, the Excise Tariff was at 6 digit level. (ii) From 28.02.2005, the same was aligned with Customs Tariff at 8 digit level. (iii) Notification No. 5/2005-C.E.(N.T.) dated 24.02.2005 was issued to cover the exemption claims made under various Central Excise Notifications prior to the introduction of the new tariff. (iv) The goods covered under heading 1508 before amendment and the goods covered under heading 1517 post amendment, are one and the same. (v) The claim of the appellants for the benefit, for the import of Bakery Shortening which was classifiable under heading 1517 as per the amended tariff, stood covered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ading No. 1516 1517 10 - Margarine, excluding liquid margarine: 1517 10 10 --- Of animal origin Kg. 8% --- Of vegetable origin : 1517 10 21 ---- Edible grade Kg. 8% 1517 10 22 ---- Linoxyn Kg. 16% 1517 10 29 ---- Other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (supra), heading 1517 was required to be substituted for 1508.90. This is also clear when we look at the sub-heading in CETH 1508 prior to amendment, which was only for Linoxyn and Other and after amendment, the sub-heading for Other was spread over to cover all tariff items except 1517 10 22 (Linoxyn). 7.4 Further, the interpretation of the above Notification would be clear when Notification No. 5/2005-C.E.(N.T.) is read together with the note underneath the same wherein, it has been explained that the said Notification is intended to take care of technical changes adopted in the Central Excise Tariff numbering scheme. This crucial aspect appears to have been clearly missed by both the lower authorities. 8. To put it in sim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
