TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (8) TMI 383
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Thacker, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : C. Satapathy, Member (T)]. - Heard both sides. Shri Naresh Thacker, ld. Advocate appearing for the respondents states that both the appeals filed by the applicant Commissioner identical hence both may be decided together. Accordingly, we take up to both the appeals and the two connected Cross Objections together for disposal. 2.&e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Trade Notice No. 38/92, dated 13-11-92, the jurisdictional Superintendent issued a letter dated 7-12-1992 to the respondents directing them to submit classification list for the impugned goods under Chapter 39. The respondents filed a classification list effective from 1-4-1993 but instead of heeding advice of the Jurisdictional Superintendent sought classification of the impugned goods under Cha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....missioner on the decision in the case of Klas Engineering Pvt. Ltd. (cited supra) is appropriate as in this case there was an order from the Board under Section 37B, a Trade Notice was issued, an advice was also issued by the jurisdictional Supdt. and yet a classification list was filed seeking a different classification and hence for the period during which the claimed classification list was in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tendent had issued a letter on 7-12-1992 to the assessee directing to submit classification list under Ch. 39 following the aforesaid order of the Board under Section 37B and the Trade Notice dated 13-11-1992. In this case also, the respondent? Filed classification list in April, 1993 but claimed classification under Ch. 54 and 63 respectively which was modified by the Asst. Commissioner in his or....