Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Home Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles News Highlights
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s. Sudha Enterprises Versus CC, Hyderabad

2016 (11) TMI 217 - CESTAT HYDERABAD

Compact Disc Re Writer (CDRW) - classification of goods - whether goods to be classified under CTH 8471.70.60 under Tariff heading 8471.70 - Claiming benefit of exemption from levy of additional customs duty (CVD) - benefit of N/N. 6/2002-C.Ex - Held that: - Sl. No. 261A envisages inter alia the benefit of notification 6/2002 to be extended to CD-ROM drive and not CDRW. Further, as correctly observed by the original authority, CDRW is required to be classified as 8471.7090 as all other subheadin .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

one for the appellant. Shri P.S. Reddy, Asst. Commissioner(AR) for the respondent. ORDER The above appeal came up for hearing as per the published list. None appeared for the appellant though notice was issued. The appeal was earlier dismissed for non-prosecution by the Tribunal vide Final Order dated 01.07.2015 on the ground that there was no representation on behalf of the appellant. Thereafter the appeal was restored by subsequent order dated 16.12.2015 on an application filed by appellant. A .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he assessable value of imported goods as ₹ 2,24,425.56. The Appellants claimed Nil rate of duty benefit under Central Excise Notification No.6/2002-C.Ex as the goods are coming under Sl. No. 261A of the said notification and falling under classification CTH 8471.70.60 under Tariff heading 8471.70. However the Customs held the view that the goods imported are to be classified under 8471.70.90 under the descriptions 'others' and that they would not come under Sl. No. 261 A of Central .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ted 4.1.2005 should not be denied, ii. The benefit of notification No 6/2002 - C.Ex availed by the appellant in respect of the goods imported earlier covered by four Bills of Entries Nos. (i) 915232 dated 20.7.2004, (ii) 916010 dated 28.7.2004, (iii) 916730 dated 5.8.2004 and (iv) 918725 dated 28.8.2004, should not be denied and why these Bills of Entries should not be reassessed to duty. iii. An amount of ₹ 1,83,278/- should not recovered under section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 in re .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Forum
what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version