1996 (11) TMI 129

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....or the Respondents. [Order per : J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)]. -  These two appeals involved the same set of facts and are therefore, disposed of together by this common order. 2. The appellants imported KAWA Brand Cinematographic Projector Lens. The goods were assessed to duty under Heading 9002.11 of CTA. The appellants filed a refund claim seeking reclassification under [Headin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....arned DR for the Revenue. 4. The Collector having accepted the classification of the contested goods under Heading 98.06, the limited question is whether the benefit of the Notification No. 69/87 was available or not? The Collector has accepted that the contested goods were parts of projectors specifically appearing against entry at Sl. No. 29 of this Notification, but has held the mounted....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....missioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Macneill & Barry Ltd., Kanpur (1985) 2 SCALE 1093 = 1986 (23) E.L.T. 5 (SC), this Court expressed the view that ammonia paper and ferro paper, used for obtaining prints and sketches of site plans could not be described as paper as that word was used in common parlance. On the same basis the Orissa High Court held in State of Orissa v. Gestetner Duplicators (P) Ltd. ....