2003 (7) TMI 545

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... for the Appellant. Shri R.K. Pardeshi, DR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Gowri Shankar, Member (T)]. - These appeals are against the order of the Commissioner confirming the demand of duty on the product "Odonil" manufactured by Besterna Chemicals on the ground that it was correctly classifiable in Heading 33.07 of the Tariff as a room deodorant and not, as claimed by the appellant, i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... air freshener and stated the user on its package. The Commissioner has confirmed the extended period of limitation. 3. The Counsel for the appellant says that, in view of the decision of the Tribunal in Satya Sai Baba Industries v. CCE - 2000 (120) E.L.T. 139 in which product in almost identical composition has been classified in Heading 3307.49 and claim for classification in the Heading....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....med by the assessee. While doing so, he has taken note of the fact that packing of the product, his order refers twice the marking of the product. Again by a notice issued to it for clearance of the product during the said period it appears that despite the provisional assessment having been ordered, notices were issued for different periods proposing classification of the goods in Heading 3307.49....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... classified in Heading 3307.49. The examination of the classification, as we have noted, arose because the assessee has changed its earlier classification of the goods in Heading 3307.49. In that situation, the issue would clearly have been examined in detailed before the change in classification was permitted. In these circumstances, to say that the assessee wilfully suppressed the use of the pro....