2008 (8) TMI 151

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Notification No. 17/2001-Cus. dated 1-3-2001. 2. The facts that arise for consideration are that the appellant imported the machinery "Automatic Wrap and Stacking Machine". The appellant filed Bills of Entry classifying the same under sub-heading 8422.40 of the Customs Tariff as wrapping machine. The adjudicating authority denied the said classification and classified the same under Chapter Heading 84.79, wherein, the appellant claimed benefit under Notification No. 17/2001, which was denied. On an appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal and upheld the Order-in-Original. While coming to the conclusion, the Commissioner (Appeals) recorded the following findings:- "In this case 'Commodity' to be manufactured is "Maintena....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rted at 2004 (170) E.L.T. 21 (Tri.-Del.), and is in favour of the appellant. 4. The learned JDR on the other hand submits that the machinery in question does not produce any commodity, which is marketable. It is his submission that the products, which are manufactured by the machine are only intermediate goods and are not marketable. He reiterates the findings of both the lower authorities. 5. Since the appellant has accepted the classification of the said machinery under Chapter Heading 84.79, we do not want to go into the question of classification of the said machinery under Heading 84.22. The next question that arises is whether the applicant is eligible for the benefit of reduced rate of duty, as per Sr. No. 235 of Notification 1....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rder of the adjudicating authority who refused to accept the classification as profounded by them, by holding the classification under sub-heading 8479.89 of the CT vide Final Order dated 8-11-2002. The Tribunal, however, remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for considering the eligibility of the machine Fermentor, to the benefit of Notification 16/2000-Cus. which provided duty at standard rate of 25% in respect of machinery for production of commodities falling under sub-heading 8479.50 or 8479.89. The adjudicating authority has denied the benefit of this Notification on the ground that the machine Fermentor imported by the appellants did not produce any commodity which could be bought and sold in the market as such as it prod....