TMI Blog2002 (1) TMI 668X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : Gowri Shankar, Member (T)]. These two appeals, one by the department and the other by the assessee, are against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Pune. The department s appeal is against the finding in that order that parts of the irrigation system that the respondent manufactured are correctly classifiable in Heading 84.24. This at the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ol station to the irrigation zone and thereafter into the drippers) would be classifiable under Heading 84.24 and would be entitled to the benefit of exemption contained in Notification 36/96. This has been followed in the decision of the Tribunal in Hallmark Industries v. CCE - 2000 (122) E.L.T. 540; Flow Tech Power v. CCE [2001 (130) E.L.T. 541 (T) = 2001 (42) RLT 220 and EPC Irrigation Ltd. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t s appeal questions both the classification of pipes and tubes and the other parts determined by the Commissioner (Appeals). We are unable to see why the department has come up in appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) classifying the pipes under Heading 39.17. He has, in his order, confirmed the classification under this treading of these pipes arrived at by the Assistant Collect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ings for sprinkler lines. The order dated 21-8-1995 of the Collector, Aurangabad, which mentions these items, has held them to be classifiable in Heading 84.24 as identifiable components of an irrigation system. The Commissioner (Appeals) has adopted the reasoning and the conclusion contained in this order. The department s objection is therefore answered. 6. Appeal E/2466/96 dismissed. Appeal E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
