TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 461X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Chapter 8701.90 - Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - E/888/2004-DB - 21066/2017 - Dated:- 2-5-2017 - Shri SS Garg, Judicial Member And Shri V. Padmanabhan, Technical Member Mr. N. Jagadish, AR, For the Appellant Mr. Neetu James, Advocate, For the Respondent Per: SS GARG The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the impugned order dated 29.4.2004 passed by the Commissioner (A), whereby the Commissioner (A) has rejected the appeal of the Revenue and upheld the Order-in-Original. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the respondent are the manufacturers of motor vehicles falling under Chapter 87 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and have declared 'Tractors' under Chap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tral Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and demanded the differential duty of under Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944 and imposed a penalty of ₹ 25,000/- under Rule 173Q for contravention of provisions of Central Excise Act, 1944, Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent filed an appeal before the Commissioner (A) and the Commissioner (A) vide Order-in-Appeal No.296/2001 dt.29.3.2001/19.4.2001 has observed that the subject Order-in-Original has been passed relying upon the certificate issued by Automobile Research Association of India, Pune, a copy of which had not been given to the respondent; that any relied upon documents which becomes part of the copy of proceedings which was not given to the respondent is against the principles of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... world by the parent-firm of the respondent is manufactured as Volvo Global Trucks, Volvo Heavy Trucks, etc He also submitted that in terms of Rule 1 of the Rules for Interpretation of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, the item is classifiable under Chapter Subheading 8704. 4. On the other hand, the leaned counsel for the respondent defended the impugned order and submitted that the Commissioner (A) has upheld the order of the original authority who has given detailed reasons for classifying the disputed items under Chapter 8701.90. He further submitted that this issue is decided in favour of the assessee in assessee's own case by the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal reported in - 2004 (174) ELT 36 . The respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
