TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (4) TMI 451
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Respondent : Shri Amresh Jain, D.R. ORDER Per R.K. Singh : Appeal has been filed against the Order-in-Appeal dated 20.4.2010 which upheld the order-in-original dated 10.2.2010 in terms of which the benefit of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus dated 1.3.2002 (Sr. No. 244) was denied on the ground that the goods imported were not connectors, rejecting the contention of the appellants that th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ector. The identifiability of this product at the time of import is only can say components and after a simple process whatever they may call is required to call it a connector." 3. The Commissioner (Appeals) in his order dated 18.1.2010 (passed in respect of the said order-in-original dated 16.12.2009) recorded his observation as under : "It is the contention of the appellants that they hav....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the assessing officer, the matter required to be remanded back." 4. In the impugned order dated 20.4.2010 it is seen that the original adjudicating authority s findings have been recorded as under : "The goods were examined in the light of the directions of the Appellate Authority and found to be parts of connectors which do not form an essential character of a connector. This is a fact and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gated thereby. The appellants contention is also in conformity with the finding recorded by the original adjudicating authority in the order dated 16.12.2009 (reproduced in para 2 above). The Commissioner (Appeals) has agreed that by virtue of Rule 2(a) of the General Rules of Interpretation in such a situation the goods will be treated as connectors. In view of the foregoing, we are of the view t....