2005 (11) TMI 412

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ppeal filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal No. 28/RAN/CHX/APPEAL/2004, dated 23-1-2004 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Ranchi. The duty involved in this case is Rs. 8,47,729.00 (Rupees eight lakh forty-seven thousand seven hundred and twenty-nine) and the amount of penalty imposed is Rs. 10,000.00 (Rupees ten thousand). 2. The lower authority disallowed the Modv .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he adjudicating authority in the impugned Order-in-Original dated 22-3-2002 on the ground that the said invoice was not "Supplementary Invoice", as no additional amount of duty had been paid by the supplier. The adjudicating authority also observed that Credit on the strength of Supplementary Invoice was provided in the Central Excise Rules vide Notification No. 51/2000, dated 29-8-2000 but Credit .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Department classified the product under Heading 2617.00 attracting duty at the rate of 8% ad valorem. Thus I find that the classification dispute was finalised, vide Order-in-Original No. 110/DC/99, dated 5-11-99. I agree with the Commissioner (Appeals) who has observed to the effect that if Classification List/Price List is submitted by the assessee but approved by the Department later, then the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X