9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (4) TMI 403X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dvocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : Moheb Ali M., Member (T)]. - The main appeal is filed by Revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). 2. The issue pertains to classification of the goods stated below : (i) Glass Lubrication Unit (ii) Feeder of glass pad (iii) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ollowing reasons. - Chartered Engineer Certificate that the said goods are machines on their own, each having a prime mover of its own. - Note 5 of Section XVI of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 indicates that for the purpose of these notes, the expression machine means machine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are only 'Parts' classifiable under 84.31. 6. The ld. SDR strongly supported the Revenues contention. The respondent is represented by ld. Advocate R.J. Parekh. 7. Heard both sides. 8. In the impugned order the Commissioner says that he has perused the drawings, purchase orders, invoices of the disputed product along with the Chartered Engineers Certificate before coming to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... venue does not even refer to the certificates though they are aware that the Commissioner relied on the certificate while concluding that the subject goods are machines. The ld. Advocate for the respondents relied on the decision of Karnataka High Court [1986 (25) E.L.T. 660] where a Division Bench of the Court held that classification of goods involving technical questions are not decidable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
