1998 (10) TMI 119

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... am, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)]. - The appellants herein are inter alia engaged in the manufacture of nail polish, nail strengthener, nail polish remover, cuticle softener, etc. falling under CET sub-heading 3304.00 and thinner under CET sub-heading 3814.00, as per classification list submitted by them w.e.f. 1-3-1992 and 1-10-1992. All these items are .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he period in dispute in terms of the above mentioned notifications) and proposing imposition of penalty. The Assistant Collector accepted the assessees' plea of classification under CET sub-heading 3814.00, holding that there is no evidence of any practice or usage that the thinner is used for removal of nail polish and as such, the condition of Note 5 to Chapter 33 is not satisfied. He held that .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ilar to the packing of nail polish remover. The retail price of Rs. 12.50 also indicates that the product is a cosmetic preparation. The label on the product shows that it is a "scientifically formulated solvent to correct dried and thickened nitro cellulose lacquer". The contention of the assessee that the thinner in dispute is different from nail polish remover is unsubstantiated. Even assuming .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X