2015 (11) TMI 967

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hat the yarn in question was manufactured out of fibres. The Department had relied upon certain test reports which have been rejected by the CESTAT holding that those test reports are not relevant as sample for it was drawn on April, 1985 and after that, there is no evidence on record to show that the goods formed part of the manufacture lot during the relevant period. - These are pure finding of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he classification approved by the competent excise officers. The rates of duty were a part of the approved classification lists. Three such classification lists were dated 17.05.1983, 17.02.1984 and 01.03.1984. The respondent sought classification of Cellulosic Spun Yarn under Tariff Heading No. 18 III (i) and the classification was approved. Subsequently show cause notices were issued alleg .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... duty and the penalty. The assessee again challenged the aforesaid orders by filing appeal before the CESTAT which has been allowed by the CESTAT vide impugned judgment dated 08.01.2007. The CESTAT has rejected the contention of the Revenue that the yarn in question was manufactured out of fibres. The Department had relied upon certain test reports which have been rejected by the CESTAT holding .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X