9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (1) TMI 206X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the Respondents. [Order per : B.B. Gujral, Vice President (T)]. - M/s. Bharat Earth Movers Ltd. have filed a Revision Application dated 4-12-1981 against the Oder-in-Appeal No. C3/725/81, dated 8-6-1981 passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Madras which has been transferred to the Tribunal and is being considered as an appeal before the Tribunal. 2. The Appellate Collector of C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sstt. Collector of Customs should implement this order by applying the effective rate of duty, namely 35% ad valorem instead of 40% as originally assessed. The Asstt. Collector of Customs has not applied this concessional rate of duty presumably on the ground that the appeal was rejected by the Appellate Collector. The Appellate Collector had also ruled that the countervailing duty shall be at the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... similar goods produced by the appellants, namely, B/E. No. D627, dated 11-11-1982 and two others which showed that the goods in question, namely, Track shoe profiles were assessed under Item 73.11 of the Customs Tariff read with 26AA of CET. He also referred to the detailed write-up showing the chemical composition of the goods. He contended that the composition of the goods would not entitle them ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the purpose of basic Customs Duty is not an issue before the Bench, i.e. whether the goods are classifiable under Heading 73.11 or 73.15(1). In either case the classification for the purpose of countervailing duty would be 26AA. That in fact, the Appellate Collector found in favour of the appellants but it appears he declined relief to the appellants possibly on a miscalculation overlooking t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
