2018 (7) TMI 346

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....R.) for the Respondent (s) ORDER Per Shri P. K. Choudhary: These appeals have been filed by the Appellants against the Orders-in-Appeal Nos.34/CUS(A)/GHY/14 & 35/CUS(A)/GHY/14 both dated 25.09.2014 both passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) of Central Excise, Cus. & S.Tax, Guwahati. 2. As the issue involved in both the appeals, is the same, they are taken up together for hearing. 3. Briefly ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... revealed that they had "Not detected any banned aryl amines" in the sample of the fabrics and its composition was "Polyester made with filament yarn", without specifying any tariff classification. Relying upon the test results, the department issued show cause notices dated 02.09.2010 contending that the imported fabrics were "Polyester made with filament yarn" classifiable under CTH 5407 69 00 o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er appropriating the amount paid by the appellants during clearance of goods. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the adjudication orders. Therefore, aggrieved by the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals), the appellant have filed these appeals before this Tribunal. 5. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 6. On perusal of records, I find that the decision of this Tribunal in ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ported the goods with other woven fabrics of Polyester Filament and classifiable under 5407.5290 of CETA. The Adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of duty along with interest and imposed penalty. 2. ............................................................................... 3. .............................................................................................. 4. I find ....