9911796707
TMI Blog1978 (9) TMI 54X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idered the points raised in the Revision Application and those urged during the course of the personal hearing and have examined the records of the case. 2. The petitioners have urged that explanation of the notfn. No. 122/71, dated 1-6-1971 talks of chemically modified phenolic resins it does not cover any synthetic resins manufactured by reacting any of the phenols with-aldehyde. This inclusiv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n and nature of the goods in the classification list. It was explained that capolyte C.P involved was fased on DELTA-3 Carene with phenolic and that C.P. stande-carene phenol. They have, therefore urged that rule 10A is not applicable in this case. In this context, they have cited the judgment of Madras High Court Writ Petition No. 1492 and 4198 of 1970 in case of Parker Co. Madras v. Union of I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itioner's case is not a case of mis-statement, but one were full and adequate data relevant for the proper assessment was not furnished. The show case notice demanding the duty in this case is not time barred. 4. In view of the foregoing, Government of India find that the order-in-appeal is correct in law and based on the facts of the case. 5. The Revision Application is accordingly rejected. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
