9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (1) TMI 266X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... This is an appeal filed by the department against the order of the Collector (Appeals), Bombay dated 29-11-1985. 2. The respondents have sent a letter dated December 23, 1995 in which they have requested waiver of personal appearance and disposal of the appeal on the basis of merit after repeating the submissions made before the Collector (Appeals). 3. The learned DR stated that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the absence of manufacturer's test certificate or relevant documents showing the chemical composition. This was necessary, because the rate of duty claimed namely, 100% was chargeable only on those cases where article was not make of stainless steel. 4. At the appellate stage, the Collector (Appeals) accepted the respondents petition on the ground that the classification having been show ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s error which was required to be rectified but no refund was due as the correct rate of duty was applied. 8. It was also his submission that since the appellants have not furnished the composition at any stage and have even now not submitted any documents to show the composition the benefit of 73.33/40(1) could not be extended and the rate applicable to 73.33/40(2) was required to be upheld. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uments even at the time of claiming reassessment. There is also no indication they did so before the Collector (Appeals). 12. Even now, they have not filed any documents to show the composition. Therefore, their contention that the article was required to be charged duty at 100% under heading 73.33/40(1) remains unsubstantiated. 13. It is also obvious from the above that the error at t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
