TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (6) TMI 46
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....R. 2. This matter has been remanded back to the Tribunal by the Hon'ble Supreme Court after setting aside the earlier order while applying the decision of the appellants' own case vide Sharp Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-III reported in 2005 (188) E.L.T. 146 (S.C.) for fresh disposal in accordance with law. 3. The issue relates to classification of aluminium foil cove....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion thereof has been claimed under S.H. No. 3920.39 and such CLs have been approved as claimed by appellants. The appellants claim of classification of Aluminum Foil under S.H. No. 7607.60 was based on the parameter of thickness which is less than 0.2 mm. 6. The samples of the aluminium foils/pouches were drawn on 28-12-1990 and the test results were communicated by Jurisdictional Supdt. Vide his....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....atter accepted the classification of printed/unprinted aluminium foil and pouches made therefrom ordered under Heading No. 39.20 and SH No. 3923.90 respectively and the same has been confirmed in appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals). 8. As seen from the test report, the plastic content of various samples is found as below: 169.6%, 63.3%, 82.05%, 82.09%, 73.87%, 72.2%, 70.43% and 73.1% The rest ....