2010 (10) TMI 1003

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the Appellant. Shri S.S. Katiyar, SDR, for the Respondent. ORDER This appeal is filed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. P-III/27/03, dated 17-3-2003 by which the order of the original authority confirming demand of Rs. 24,870/- was upheld. 2. Heard both sides extensively. 3. The appellant is a 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of cotton yarn. The appell....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Commissioner (Appeals). 4. The learned Advocate for the appellant submits that the mobile storage system was manufactured by M/s. Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd., and the same stood classified by them as office equipment falling under 7216.50/7326.90. The attempt of the officer-in-charge of the appellant's unit to re-classify the item after issuing the CT-3 certificate is not justi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... officer-in-charge, the duty is liable to be demanded from the appellants as office equipments are not covered by the exemption notification. 6. We have carefully considered the submissions from both sides and perused the records. 7. The show cause notice is proposing denial of the benefit of exemption notification on a vague ground that mobile storage system is "like an office fur....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt unit cannot be allowed to sit in judgment over the classification already determined by the officer-in-charge of manufacturing unit. The decisions relied on by the learned SDR in the case of Methodex Systems Ltd. and other cases relate to classification of goods like filing cabinet manufactured by respective parties. Without going into the merits of the classification of the impugned mobile sto....