2005 (8) TMI 255

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r it was decided that the benefit of tariff value fixed by the Govt. under Notification No. 36/2001Cus. (N.T.), dated 23-8-2001 cannot be given to the impugned goods as they do not satisfy the requirement of Notification No. 21/2002Cus., dated 1-3-2002 to qualify as crude palmolein. Therefore, the Original Authority passed three orders confirming the differential duty demanded and thereafter the appellants approached the Commissioner (Appeals) who passed Orders-in-Appeal No. 71 to 73/2004 dated 29-4-2004. The appellants appealed to CESTAT, Bangalore. The cases were remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) consequent to the remand order of the CEGAT passed the impugned Order-in-Appeal No. 18/2004 dated 15-10-2004. T....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on at the relevant time adopted only four digit classification of Customs Tariff. There was no dispute that the crude palmolein imported by the appellants particularly fell under Chapter Heading No. 15.11. Therefore, the question of looking into classification at further lower levels of six or Eight digit level was unnecessary and irrelevant. 7. The learned SDR reiterated the Order-in-Appeal. 8. We have gone through the records of the case carefully. Two issues are involved in this appeal. (1)     What is the correct value to be adopted for payment of Customs duty in this case? (2)     Whether the appellant is entitled for the benefit of the tariff value in respect of the impugned goods. ....