2008 (8) TMI 78

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... CDR, for the Appellant. Shri S.J. Vyas, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per: B.S.V. Murthy, Member (T)]. - The respondents in this case are manufacturing instruments and apparatus for physical or chemical analysis, namely, "Micro Process bio chemical analysis enzymer and drug level" classifiable under Chapter 90 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The respondents had classified their ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... nil rate of duty vide Notification No. 60/95 dated 16-3-95, respondents filed a fresh classification list classifying their product again under heading 90.27 so that they can avail nil rate of duty on the product. Shri Suresh Vajirani, Managing Director of the respondents admitted the mis-classification of the product made by them and the whole amount of differential duty involved Rs. 13,72,314/-....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....so set aside. Revenue is in appeal against this order. 2. Heard both the sides. Learned Jt. CDR submits that the respondents had deliberately changed the classification of the product in June 1994 as soon as the rate of duty increased from 5 to 10% on the product manufactured by them under CETH 90.27 and as soon as their product became liable to nil rate of duty they again changed the classific....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the respondents had not simply cleared the goods at the lower rate of duty after Notification Was rescinded in June, 1994. They had actually filed classification list on 6-6-94 revising classification of the product manufactured by them from 90.27 to 90.18. There is no indication whatsoever from the records as to what action, the officers of the Department took on this classification list. Further....