2009 (9) TMI 755

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dated 26-3-08 set aside the order of the Tribunal and remanded the matter for reconsideration of the Tribunal with the following observations/directions :- "Learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Revenue fairly concedes that the impugned order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal ('the Tribunal') requires to be set aside and the case remitted to the Tribunal for deciding the matter afresh as the Tribunal has failed to consider the real issue involved in the present case, viz., whether the product in question was 'sheets of paper compressed together' or only simple sheet of paper'. In view of the statement made by the learned Additional Solicitor General, we set aside the impugned order of the Tr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of Central Excise Rules, 1944. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order of the original authority. 4. Learned DR submits that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is not legal. He submits that according to the Chemical examiner's reports dated 17-11-97 and 26-11-97, the subject goods were impregnated with phenolic resin and also sample weighed 288.1 gram per M(GSM). Therefore, the products fall under heading 4811.31 from 1-3-97 and for the earlier period they were not eligible for the benefit of notification No. 8/96 dated 23-7-96 . He relies on the description of the Heading No. 4811.31 of HSN and relevant portion of the explanatory in support of his claim. 5. Learned advocate for the respondent submits that they....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....talysts), compressed together in one or more operations; or (b) Products known commercially as 'decorative laminates' 20% Adv.   7. The description of tariff entry 4811.39 for the period 1-3-97 to date is identical in wording to the description in the notification as above. The learned advocate for the respondent does not dispute that the filter paper in question has been impregnated. His contention is that for exclusion from notification No. 8/96, mere impregnation is not sufficient and the same should have more than one sheet compressed together. We find this submission is acceptable. The show cause notice has sought to deny the exemption merely on the ground that the filter paper has been impregnated with resins, solvent....