1987 (7) TMI 384

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....L.C. Chakraborti, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : S.D. Jha, Vice President (J)]. - The question for decision in these 44 appeals disposed of by this common order is classification for the purpose of basic customs duty of printing plates and graphic art films. 2. We have heard Shri Ravinder Bhatt, Advocate for the appellants and Shri L.C. Chakraborti, JDR for the respondent. We have ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....bunal in the appellants own case M/s Kasturi & Sons v. Collector of Customs, Madras (Order Nos. 261 to 278/86-C dated 14.5.1986). In this decision the Tribunal held Toyobo Printing Plates as properly classifiable under Heading 84.34 of CTA 75 against classification under Heading 37.01/08 done by the Revenue. Graphic Art Film was found classifiable under Chapter 37 which was considered more specifi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Tribunal decision had relying on Dunlop India v. Union of India reported in 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1566 held that end-use of the article in respect of customs duty is absolutely irrelevant unless the heading itself provides for such end-use. He submitted that the goods are classifiable on the basis of the character of the goods at the time of import. 7. We have carefully considered the submissions a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lms the decision had upheld the classification for the purpose of basic customs duty under Heading 37.01/08. We have already said above how reversal or modification of this classification in spite of Shri Bhatt's argument on the point are not called for in absence of requisite evidence. 9. Both the parties reiterated the grounds urged in the Memo of Appeal and those advanced before the Tribunal....