2001 (1) TMI 177

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... olved in the present appeal is as to whether the various forged products manufactured by the appellants, would be properly classifiable under Heading 7326.90, as contended by the appellants, or the same would be classifiable under Heading 8483.00, as found by the Revenue. The Commissioner vide his impugned order by holding that the forged/rolled rings/blanks manufactured by the appellants are prop .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... itted in para 2.4 of the show cause notice. Reference has been made to a number of decisions in support of the above submissions. 3. Dr. Samir Chakraborty, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants submits that the present confirmation of demand of duty against them is a result of a dispute on the Classification List filed by them earlier claiming the classification of the goods under Heading .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... by the appellants. As such, he submits that inasmuch as the initial dispute on the classification, as a consequence of which the present demand has been confirmed against the appellants, has been settled in their favour, the same is required to be set aside by the Tribunal. 4. Shri R.N. Das, learned Senior Advocate for the Revenue admits the above factual position, but submits that the earlier or .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X