9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (12) TMI 162X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Respondent. [Order per : G.R. Sharma, Member (T)]. - This appeal has been filed the Revenue assailing the order of the Collector (Appeals). In the impugned order, the Collector (Appeals) held that "The appeal was listed for personal hearing and argued by Shri Y.D. Gupta and Shri S.K. Khaitan. A written submission was also handed over by learned Advocate. On going through the facts of the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rwise requires, these headings do not apply to paper, paper board, cellulose wadding or webs of cellulose fibres which have been otherwise processed, for example, by coating or impregnation. Again definition of various kinds of paper viz., vegetable parchment, grease-proof papers, tracing papers and glassine etc. clearly does not cover the paper manufactured by the apellant. The correct cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eets of paper and it resists the penetration of fats and oils. The Department alleged that since such varieties of papers with such characteristics attract classification under Chapter Heading 48.06 instead of sub-heading 4805.90. A show cause notice was issued. The Assistant Collector after considering the submissions made before him held that the papers were classifiable under Chapter sub-headin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etable parchment, grease-proof paper, tracing paper and glassine papers have been defined. It was submitted that in the test report a note was appended, which read its use as glassine paper or grease-proof paper may be ascertained. He submits that there is nothing on record to show that any enquiry was conducted to find out the use of the paper. He submits that the samples were sent for retest and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the submissions made, we find that there is force in the arguments of ld. Counsel for the respondents inasmuch as the adjudicating authority did not take into consideration the note in the test report nor did he refer to retest report dated 25-10-1991 nor did he pay any heed to the result of the other test report submitted by the assessee. We find that this is a fit case for remand. In the circu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
