TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (8) TMI 860
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n. For the Respondent no. 1: Mr. Siddharth Chandrashekhar a/w Mr. Umesh Gupta. For the Respondent no. 2: Mr. Harshad Shingnapurkar. P.C. : 1. This is a statutory appeal filed under Section 28KA of the Customs Act, 1962 ("the said Act") impugning an order dated 8th July 2022 passed by respondent no. 6. Various grounds have been raised in the appeal. 2. The appellant is a leading transnatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Act, 1975 and not 23.09 as was the case of the applicant. 5. We have perused the impugned order and we are convinced that impugned order dated 8th July 2022 is required to be quashed and matter is required to be remanded for de novo consideration. 6. The first reason for this decision of us is in paragraph 6 of the impugned order, it is stated therein that "........... I proceed to pronounce m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... We say so because both appears to be the same because the order passed by Central Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in Tetragon Chemie Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore 2001 (138) E.L.T. 414 (Tri.-LB) which was confirmed by the Apex Court in Tetrogon Chemie (supra) describes the product and it appears to be the same. Therefore, respondent no. 6 ought to have elaborate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d circular and its applicability. 10. Appellant had also placed reliance on an adjudication order by respondent no. 1 passed on 23rd August 2021 in the case of M/s. Kantilal Manilal & Co. Pvt. Ltd. In the said case, identical product was the subject matter of consideration and respondent no. 1 has accepted that product would fall under classification of 2309. Respondent no. 6 should have consider....