1998(03)LCX0216

IN THE CEGAT, COURT NO. III, NEW DELHI

Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J) and Shri J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)

COLLECTOR OF C. EX., AURANGABAD

Versus

MONARCH MOULDING (P) LTD.

Final Order Nos. 205 & 206/98-C, dated 25-3-1998 in Appeal Nos. E/1623 & 1632/93-C

Advocated By : Shri H.K. Jain, SDR, for the Appellant.

None, for the Respondent.

[Order per : Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)]. - The respondents, herein, imported goods described as “Desmodur VT 66". At the time of importation, the goods were classified under Chapter Heading 3823.90 with the benefit of Notification No. 136/86 chargeable to duty @ 70% basic 45% auxiliary 15% C.V.D. On the basis of the CERA, it was felt that the item merited classification under Chapter Heading 3911.90 of the Customs Tariff chargeable to duty @ 100% basic 45% auxiliary 15% CVD. Hence show cause notice and demand notice for Rs. 29,256.30 was issued to the respondents/importers. The Assistant Collector of Customs held that since the item imported was an Isocynate compound, it is to be assessed individually on merits. He drew support from the Board’s circular dated 14-1-1989. He, therefore, dropped the demand. Before the appellate authority, the department did not substantiate its claim for classification of the imported goods under Heading 3911.90 and hence the Collector (Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the Revenue on the ground that they could not substantiate their plea. Even before us the Revenue has not set out any reasons in the memo of appeal for re-classification of the item under Heading 3911.90. The appeal memo only states that the Collector (Appeals) should have given an opportunity to the department to furnish the grounds for the proposed classification under Chapter 39 and should not have rejected the appeal. In other words, no grounds to support the claim for classification under Chapter 39 are adduced before us. We, therefore, see no alternative but to hold that the Revenue’s case remained unsubstantiated, uphold the impugned order and reject the appeals.

_______

Equivalent 1998 (102) ELT 477 (Tribunal)