2012 (11) TMI 147

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l Agarwal, Advocates, for the Appellant. Shri Sanjay Kalra, Appraiser (AR), for the Respondent. [Order per : Ashok Jindal, Member (J)].  The appellants have challenged the impugned order before us. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant, M/s. Ispat Industries Ltd. imported a consignment of "Quakerol 1027 A1 and Quakerol 29 C A1" and filed Bill of Entry classifying th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dicating authority held that the appellants have correctly classified the goods under Heading 2710.00. As the Revenue was not satisfied with that order, they challenged the order before the Commissioner (A), who altogether has gone beyond the allegation in the show-cause notice and classified under Heading 3403.00, which is not permissible in law, therefore, the impugned order is illegal and to be....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....artment. Therefore, the samples were drawn and test report was obtained. On this basis of test report, the department was of the view that the imported goods are to be classified under Heading No. 2712.10, accordingly, the show-cause notice was issued to classify the impugned goods under Heading No. 2712.10 instead of Heading No. 2710.99 claimed by the appellant which was contested by the appellan....