9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 693X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - For the Respondent ORDER Per: SS GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 30.9.2003 passed by the Commissioner (A) wherein the Commissioner (A) has rejected the appeal of the appellant and upheld the Order-in-Original but dropped the penalty of Rs. 5,000/- imposed on the appellant. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellants are manufacturers of HDPE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 05% Cess on the HDPE stitching yarn manufactured and cleared by them. On the basis of the investigation, the appellant received a show-cause notice asking them as to why a Central Excise duty amounting to and AED of Rs. 53,737/- short paid should not be demanded under Section 11A(1) and why interest and penalty should not be imposed. The appellant in their reply dated 6.11.2002 to the show-cause n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inable in law as the same has been passed without appreciating the provisions of statute as well as binding judicial precedent. The learned counsel further submitted that the Commissioner (A) has failed to appreciate that the stitching yarn manufactured is only an article of plastic and as such, it cannot be treated as textile article. He also submitted that the classification of HDPE stitching ya ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led by the M.P. High Court in the case of Rajpack Well cited above. We note that this decision of the M.P. High Court was subsequently been followed by the Tribunal in a number of cases agreeing that the goods were classifiable under Chapter Sub-heading 3920.32." 5. Since the issue is covered by the above decision of the Tribunal, therefore, by following the ratio of the said decision, we allow t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
