1997 (11) TMI 350
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Shri S.N. Ghosh, JDR, for the Respondents. [Order per : P.C. Jain, Member (T)]. - These two matters relate to approval of two classification lists. Since the issues involved are common and a common impugned order has been passed, a common order is being passed. Briefly stated, facts of the case are as follows :- 2.1 Ld. Advocate, Shri S.P. Mazumder submits that the appella....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ist in 1988 claiming the classification of hand tool from Heading 82.08-82.05. This classification list was not approved by the Revenue. 2.3 In March, 1989, another classification list was submitted by the appellants inasmuch as they had introduced a new product under Chapter 74. This classification list also was not approved by the Department and it remains pending. 2.4 Later on, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt from the signature of the person who has carried out the correction in the two classification lists. He therefore, submits that the correction made by the Excise Assistant was not authorised. If any correction was to be made, it should have been done by the same signatory. 2.5 Ld. Advocate submits that as a result of this unauthorised correction made by the Excise Assistant, the classif....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bove particulars to be true and correctly and fully stated. For the A to Z Company Sd/- Partner" He submits that the signature of the person who signed for the appellants and holding himself out as a partner in this declaration is the same person who has made corrections on the front page of both the clearances in hand-writing. He, however, submits that in fact there is no signature below....
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
TaxTMI