1997 (6) TMI 89

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... : G.R. Sharma, Member (T)]. - Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants imported synthetic waste which was assessed to duty on 30th June, 1984. The duty was paid on 2nd July, 1984. Subsequently, on 1st January, 1985 the Department raised a less charge demand on account of the allegation that auxiliary duty chargeable on the goods was not levied and collected and that additio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nthetic waste. The Ld. Collector (Appeals) also held that since the appellants did not produce any evidence to prove that explanation under Tariff Item 18-IV did not cover their product. Therefore he upheld the allegation of the Department that the product imported by the appellant was classifiable under Tariff Item No. 18-IV of the then Central Excise Tariff. Against this order of the Ld. Collect....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....He submits that since the appellants did not produce any evidence to prove that the explanation under Tariff Item No. 18-IV did not cover the goods was not produced by them. Therefore the goods were classifiable under Tariff Item No. 18-IV of the then Central Excise Tariff. 3. On the question of limitation the Ld. JDR submitted that the goods were assessed on 30th June, 1984 but the duty w....