TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1998 (4) TMI 308
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Respondent. [Order per : P.C. Jain, Member (T)]. - Briefly stated the facts of the case are as follows :- 1.1 The appellant firm herein is a manufacturer of Transformers and Battery Eliminators. The Transformers were removed from their factory by classifying them under Tariff Heading 85.04 and the Battery Eliminators, according to the appellants, were classifiable under Tariff Headin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....both the items. Hence a show cause notice was issued and the demand of duty for a sum of Rs. 84,814.31 was confirmed against the appellants herein. 1.3 On due adjudication by the Commissioner, a penalty of Rs. 25,000.00 was also imposed on the appellants. Hence this appeal before the Tribunal. 2. Learned Advocate, Shri K.K. Banerjee submits on behalf of the appellant firm, that the Bat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at all. For this proposition, learned Advocate relies on Tribunal's judgment in the case reported in 1996 (88) E.L.T. 163 (Tribunal). He, therefore, prays for allowing the appeal. 3. Opposing the contentions, learned SDR, Shri T. Premkumar submits that marketability was never in question before the lower authorities. Apart from that, he also submits that no dispute about the marketability ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the demand of duty has been correctly confirmed and a penalty has also been correctly imposed. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions of both sides. In view of the submissions of the learned S.D.R., we hold that the Battery Eliminator has the function of static converter. The submission of the learned Advocate that Battery Eliminator is a part of the Transistor Set and therefore, s....