TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 979X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were subsequently corrected by issuing a corrigendum. Therefore no merit in the contention of the present respondent that the classification under corrigendum is prospective in nature. The findings of the Commissioner(Appeals) in this regard are not sustainable hence set aside. Merit in the contention of the Revenue that the steel tables supplied to the education department are rightly classifiable under chapter 94 of the Tariff. The findings of the Commissioner(Appeals) in this regard are not sustainable hence set aside. Appellant has produced evidence regarding purchase of the items in question from other units and in respect of payments made to the suppliers. The Commissioner(Appeals) further held that proprietors of M/s.Dulax Stee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... herein that the goods classifiable under chapter 73 of the Tariff are exempted under General Notification No.66. Thereafter Revenue issued a corrigendum to say that steel tables supplied to the education department are classifiable under sub-heading 9403 of the Central Excise Tariff and liable to duty and the value of clearance were beyond the limit prescribed under S.S.I. exemption. Hence demand was made. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and imposed the penalty. The Commissioner(Appeals) on Appeal filed by the Appellant set aside the demand on three grounds.:- 1) That the corrigendum to Show Cause Notice whereby goods here held to be classifiable under chapter 94 of the Tariff is not a valid notice. 2) The steel table ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 5. We find that in the present case Show Cause Notice was issued by classifying the goods i.e. steel tables supplied to the education department under chapter 73 of the Tariff and a corrigendum was issued to the Show Cause Notice to classify the goods under chapter 94 of the Tariff. The classification is to be decided by taking into consideration the classification claimed under the corrigendum. It is not a case where the Show Cause Notice was issued within the normal period of limitation and thereafter corrigendum was issued demanding duty under other heading of Tariff by invoking extended period of limitation. In the decision relied upon by the Appellant in the case of Mahindra Mahindra Ltd. v. Commissioner of C.Ex., Mumbai-V (supr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and parts meaning thereby that the household articles such as tables are classifiable under chapter 73 of the Tariff and other furniture is classifiable under chapter 94 of the Tariff. Further we find that the sub-heading 9403 of the Tariff covers metal furniture of kind used in offices as in the present case the tables are for supply to the education department for use in the schools therefore we find merit in the contention of the Revenue that the steel tables supplied to the education department are rightly classifiable under chapter 94 of the Tariff. The findings of the Commissioner(Appeals) in this regard are not sustainable hence set aside. 7. On the third ground contention of Revenue is that the respondent wrote to the education ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
