2019 (11) TMI 949

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... VENKATA SUBBA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Ms. K. Nancy, Advocate for the Appellant Shri. S. Govindarajan, Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER PER: SULEKHA BEEVI C.S. The issue involved in all these appeals being the same, they are heard and disposed of by this common order. 2.1 Brief facts are that the appellant is a manufacturer of components of turbo-chargers, cast....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssioner (Appeals) upheld the same. Hence, these appeals. 3.1 On behalf of the appellant, Ld. Counsel Ms. K. Nancy appeared and argued the matter. She submitted that both the items viz., Machined Bearing Housing Assembly and Turbine Housing Assembly are components of turbo-chargers and are classifiable under the same Tariff Item 8414 90 90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act and therefore, they are....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Representative (A.R.) Shri. S. Govindarajan appeared on behalf of the Department. He supported the findings in the impugned order. 5. Heard both sides. 6. The issue is whether the rejection of benefit of the Notification is sustainable on the allegation that the goods cleared under DTA are not similar to the goods exported by the appellant. 7.1 The Adjudicating Authority has relied upon t....