TMI Blog2010 (1) TMI 464X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ejected under sub-heading 2710.11 and 2710.13, and upheld under sub heading 2710.90. - E/3787/2003 and E/927/2004 - A/11-12/2010-WZB/C-II/EB - Dated:- 20-1-2010 - S/Shri B.S.V. Murthy, Member (T) and Ashok Jindal, Member (J) Shri J.C. Patel, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Wilson H., Jt. CDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : B.S.V. Murthy, Member (T)]. - The issue involved in the present case is classification of the various goods, viz., RRS-I N, RRS-II N, etc., which were classified by the appellants under CETH 2710.90 as "others". The impugned order has been passed classifying the product under CETH 2710.11 and 2710.13 on the ground that the products manufactured by the appellants fulfilled the requirement of the boi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itability of the products for use in spark ignition engine. The only evidence available is the statement of Shri A.K. Jain, the production-in-charge, who had admitted that the product had the boiling point within the range as per the tariff heading and the flash point was below 25°C and he had also stated that all these products are having suitable hydrocarbon mixtures for use in spark ignition engine. The appellants contested this by stating that this only reflected the understanding of Shri A.K. Jain but the fact remains that they were selling the product as a solvent to their customers and in the absence of a proper test as regards the characteristics and its end use, mere opinion of their manager would not be sufficient to revise the cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it would not be possible to sustain the impugned order. This is because when the tariff heading clearly provides the characteristics of the products and its end use, it was the duty of the departmental officers to draw samples and get the same tested and the officers have failed to do this over a period of three years. Having failed to do this over a period of three years when the appellant had filed classification declaration periodically, show cause notice invoking extended period cannot be issued after five years. 4. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any reason to uphold the impugned order and, therefore, we set aside the same and allow the appeals filed by both the appellants with consequential relief. (Dictated in Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
