2013 (11) TMI 1570

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pellant. Shri R.K. Mishra, DR, for the Respondent. ORDER Ld. Counsel submits that there were two imports made during impugned period. So far as first import is concerned entire goods did not reach. But part of the goods reached and that part failed to enjoy EPCG benefit because such licence was not issued by that time. Rest of the part of the import of the first lot reached in India when ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Next question arises is in respect of classification. Appellant's goods were argued to be machinery meant for wool weaving industry. That cannot be vacuum cleaner of commercial use for its different nature and characteristic. Classification of such goods was claimed by appellant under the heading 8448 49 90. That entry is residuary entry of the class 8448. That entry throws light that the go....