1999 (2) TMI 149

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nder Rule 23 of CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for bringing additional evidence on record. He submits that the respondents want to place on record, additional evidence in the form of two expert opinion given by two officers of Indian Institute of Technology in respect of the goods in question. 2. Ld. JDR appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the expert opinion was not before the lower authorities. However, the opinion was obtained by the respondents in respect of the goods in question without the knowledge of the Revenue. He therefore, prays that the application be dismissed. 3. Heard both sides. We find that the expert opinion is obtained by the respondents without the knowledge of the Revenue; and identity of the goods se....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....layer plastic laminates tubes. He submits that from the process of manufacture given by the respondents, it is clear that the goods in question are classifiable under Heading No. 39.17 of the Central Excise and are covered under Entry No. 26(1) of the Notification No. 53/88. He therefore, prays that the appeal be allowed. 7. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the pipes in question are composite articles made up of resins and fibre glass (impregnation). He submits that there is no evidence to show that these are articles of multilayer plastic laminates tubes. He therefore, prays that the appeal be dismissed. 8.  Heard both sides. 9. In this case, there is no dispute regarding the classific....