TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (3) TMI 413
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Appellant. None, for the Respondent. [Order per : Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President]. - The adjudicating authority confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 16,110/- and imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- on the respondents herein on the ground that they were liable to pay duty on the clearance of ink for marker pens which were cleared without payment of duty under notification 83/90. The manufa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... aside. This claim that the product was a writing ink was rejected relying upon the test report which called the product "a type of ink". The Assistant Commissioner therefore held that the product, ink, was classifiable under CET sub-heading 3215.90 and chargeable to duty @ 18%. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the contention of the assessee that since the show cause notice only referred to the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....emanded the case to the original authority for testing the product with specific reference to its nature either as a writing ink or an ink other than writing ink, before arriving at the classification thereof and the subsequent demand thereon. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the adjudicating authority for the purpose of drawing samples, getting them tested by the....