2004 (1) TMI 462

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ran, Sr. Advocate with D.H. Nadkarni, Consultant, for the Appellant. Shri Uma Shankar, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)]. - The appellants herein manufacture Seamless C.S. Pipe PTFE-TEFLON/PVDF/PP and other plastic lined products as well as C.S./cast ductile iron fabricated steel pipe fittings etc. and classified them under CETA sub-heading 3917.00 of t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r the appellants have filed Appeal No. E/1083/96-Bom. On remand the Assistant Commissioner re-adjudicated the case and confirmed duty of Rs. 22,32,245/-. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 23-9-96 upheld the Assistant Commissioner's order; against such order the appellants have preferred Appeal No. E/2400/96-Bom. 2. We have heard both sides. We find that the issue of classificatio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....its bulk, quantity, weight or value......, cited by them, was not considered by the Tribunal and applying this circular, the goods in question would not fall for classification under Chapter 73 as the value of plastic material was pre-dominant and therefore the products should have been held to be classifiable under Chapter 39 as claimed. We are unable to accept this arguments for two reasons : ....