1994 (6) TMI 67

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....B.K. Singh, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.C. Jain, Member (T)]. -  Briefly stated, the facts are as follows :- 1.1 In three separate classification lists of different dates, the appellants herein declared among other goods the description of one type of goods as follows (as reproduced in the impugned order) and claimed classification of the said goods under Tariff Item....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... relevant classification lists.......the appellants' subject excisable goods in question have a sectional area of "2.55 mm2" which is more than 2.5 square milimetres as provided for in Item 33B(i) of the CET". 1.4 Yet, despite the aforesaid finding of fact, the lower appellate authority has classified the goods under Tariff Item 33B(i) confirmed the order-in-original and rejected the appea....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ted in the counter-affidavit that as the tariff definition, lays down the specification only up to the first decimal place, the area of the particular cable has necessarily to be calculated and corrected upto the first decimal place in accordance with accepted arithmetical norms of correction of decimal places, lest there be an arithmetical fallacy in the method of correction. It is further stated....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s is perverse. The error is quite apparent on the face of the records." 2.2 Learned SDR, Shri B.K. Singh, for the Revenue was also in an embarassing situation to defend the impugned order in view of the finding of fact reached by the lower appellate authority. The Bench could understand the indefensible position of the Revenue. 3.1 We are shockingly surprised at the final order of ....