TMI Blog2004 (2) TMI 403X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssifying the goods under Chapter Heading 9307 and imposed fine as well as penalty on the appellant. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order present appeal is filed. 2. At the time of personal hearing ld. Counsel Shri Sujay Kantawala appeared for personal hearing on behalf of the appellant and stated that in the instant case show cause notice was signed by the officer on 26-12-2003 but it was shown to have been issued on 29-10-2003, thereafter giving the personal hearing etc. order was issued on 2-1-2004, hence they were not given sufficient opportunity to represent the case, whereas Bill of Entry was kept pending for two months. He further stated that the only reason for classifying the aforesaid goods under tariff Heading 9307 was that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... one week from the date of issue of show cause notice. If the department is really efficient then it should be appreciated but the fact placed on record does not support them. The principles of natural justice also requires that appellant should be given proper and sufficient time to defend his case. If the Bill of Entry was filed on 22-10-2003 then they could have issued the show cause notice well in time and not on 26-12-2003. 4. Next issue is regarding the classification of the product. The only basis for classification of the product under Chapter Heading 9307 is the appellants vide letter dated 13-11-2003 requested for early clearance of the consignment which was pending for more than 20 days on the ground that goods were to be displ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g 9307, then the order cannot be sustained. I also find that in Page 3 Para 2 of the adjudication order the original authority has also referred that Commissioner (Import) has accepted that the goods imported classification under CTH 9307 and not under tariff heading 8211 as sought by the importer which also gives the indication that original authority has not applied his mind and passed the orders as per the observation by the Commissioner so there appears to be non-application of mind by the original authority. 5. In case of G.S. Auto International v. Collector of Customs, Chandigarh reported in 2003 (152) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) it was held by the Hon ble Supreme Court that classification of the goods to be determined by commercial identity te ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
