9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 363X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the form of tech-write-up and neither the original authority nor the FAA finds fault with the same, nor does they disagree with the same. Also, other than the audit objection by the audit team, there is absolutely nothing made available on record by the revenue to justify classification under CTH 7318, nor is there any whisper about the claims of the appellant being wrong. No fault found with the nature or even the usage of the goods in question, nor is there any counter to the technical write-up as to the design and usage of the goods in question. Hence, this is clear case where the revenue has alleged wrong classification based on nothing and thus the consequent SCN proposing to demand differential duty lacks a concrete foundation. Thus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on. Appellant appears to have justified its classification based on the strength of technical write-up, design drawing, etc. filed in response to Show Cause Notice, but however, the Adjudicating Authority has without considering any of these nor disagreeing with the claims of the app, proceeds to confirm with the proposals in the Show Cause Notice thereby also confirming the proposed demands vide Order-In-Original dated 14.05.2019. 3. Aggrieved by the consequential demand of differential duty, the importer/appellant appears to have approached the First appellate authority; and the First Appellate Authority also having rejected its appeal thereby upholding the demand vide Order-In-Appeal Seaport C. Cus. II No. 905/2020 dated 28.8.2020, the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r injection moulding machines and could not be used in general though they have common name .. . We fail to understand what more was required; there is no fault found with the nature or even the usage of the goods in question, nor is there any counter to the technical write-up as to the design and usage of the goods in question. We have to hold in these circumstances, that this is clear case where the revenue has alleged wrong classification based on nothing and thus the consequent SCN proposing to demand differential duty lacks a concrete foundation. 8. In view of the above, we hold that the Revenue is not able to establish or satisfy in its attempt to re-classify the goods in question under CTH 7318 and hence, the impugned order lacks mer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
