2000 (11) TMI 180

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....i Balasundaram, Member (J)]. - The appellants herein are engaged in the manufacture of Aluminium Wire Rods on Job work basis in the manufacture of which Aluminium plates supplied by three manufacturers were used. On an examination of the inputs, it appeared to the Departmental officers that the inputs were not aluminium plates falling under Heading 7606.10 but would be correctly classifiable under....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ainst this order. 3.Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate appeared for the appellants and Shri S.K. Das, learned DR appeared for the respondents. 4.Shri Anand stated that when the Collector had accepted that the classification had not deliberately been wrongly shown to benefit the receiver, there was no cause for imposition of penalty on the appellants. He stated that where the classification ha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....arefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. Rule 57-G(2) (IVth Proviso) prescribes that the manufacturer should take all reasonable steps to ensure that the inputs acquired by them are goods on which the appropriate duty as indicated in the documents accompanying the goods, have been paid. The Collector has cited this rule and has held that when the classification shown in the duty....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....by another Collector, leave alone to demand duty calculated on the change of such classification. We further find that since he has exonerated the supplier of the inputs from the charge of wilfully entering the wrong classification there was no reason for him to impose any penalty on the present appellants. 7.The contention of the learned DR that the present case does not pertain to challenge t....