1996 (4) TMI 243

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sp;Arguing for the appellants Ld. Consultant submits that in the first place, even though Assistant Collector has confirmed the demand for 6 months only even this demand cannot be sustained for the reasons that since this demand alleging suppression was issued by Assistant Collector and not Collector, the entire order is vitiated. Subsequently, however, the Ld. Consultant fairly conceded that in view of the Apex Court judgment in the case of Safari Industries reported in 1993 (64) E.L.T. 197 he does not press this plea. 4. Arguing on the merits of the case he submits that authorities below have held the goods as classifiable under Heading 4016 as against 4008 as claimed by them. Before elaborating further in regard to the applicabil....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Heading 4008. Even admitting while denying, that impugned articles would not fall under 4008, at this stage, however, the Ld. Consultant fairly concedes that in deciding classification of such products as between the two competing entries, 4008 and 4016, problem has basically crept in because of introduction of the `heading' "articles of materials of Heading 40.08" immediately under the Heading 4016 and above sub-heading 4016.11. In Customs Tariff for instance such a heading above the sub-heading has not been adopted. Even in HSN such a heading is missing. He, therefore, submits that even while Heading 4008 could be excluded, Heading 4016 also cannot be included to cover these items. At one stage the Ld. Consultant pressed his claim for cla....