2001 (5) TMI 762

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s. 72,02,612 amount of penalty. (2) Shri. V. K. Gupta, Managing Director Rs. 7,50,000/- penalty 2. Shri R. Swaminathan, learned Consultant submitted that the Appellant company manufactures hologram and holographic films which is a laminated product; that they were classifying the impugned products under Heading 49.01 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act as a product of printing industry, whereas the Commissioner has classified it under sub-Heading 39.19 of the Tariff as self-adhesive films. He referred to Note 2 to Section VII of the Tariff, which provides that 'except for the goods of Heading No. 39.18 or 39.19, plastics, rubber, and article thereof, printed with motifs, character or pictorial representations, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eading . He relied upon the decision in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) v. Afrique Trade Links Ltd. - 2001 (129) E.L.T. 539 (Tri); that the Adjudicating Authority did not deal with the expert opinion placed by them on record nor did he considered the various samples of the self-adhesive films placed before him; that he has described the expert opinion by merely observing that the word lamination has been used in the said report in common literary parlance to describe the goods and not in strict legal and technical terms. The learned Consultant, finally, submitted that the Adjudicating Authority had not supported his finding with any technical material/literature and as such, prima facie their claim for classification under ....