2017 (9) TMI 616

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt : MR ANKIT SHAH, ADVOCATE ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) 1. The assessee is in appeal before this Court challenging the judgment of CESTAT dated 13.10.2005. Following substantial question of law was admitted at the time of admission of the appeal : "Whether the CESTAT, Mumbai was correct in holding that the applicant is not eligible for the benefit of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e classification of goods was wrongly done under heading 7308.90. The Tribunal remanded the proceedings to the adjudicating authority for considering the correct classification making certain observations. In the second round, the Commissioner upheld the assessee's contention that goods would fall under entry 72.08. Before the Commissioner, the assessee sought benefit of notifications 208/83 a....