TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 979X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lowed - decided in favor of appellant. - C/8/2012-CU[DB] - C/A/70728/2017-CU[DB] - Dated:- 13-7-2017 - Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) Ms Natasha Sarkar, Advocate - for Appellant Shri Rajeev Ranjan, Joint Commissioner (AR) - for Respondent ORDER Per: Anil G. Shakkarwar The present appeal is directed against Ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellants were classifiable under Tariff heading No.8529090 and not under Tariff item No.9013 8010. The appellant's request for the provisional assessment made to the Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida, vide their letter dated 09.03.2010 was also not allowed and the appellant was instructed vide departments letter dated 03.08.2010 to file all the future bills of entry for similar LCD panels ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t to file appeal against the assessment order. Vide impugned order the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) held that the product imported by the appellant was not merely a Liquid Crystal Device but an assembly of LCD Panel, a driver unit, a PCB and inverter and hence the same would not be classifiable under Tariff Item No.9013 but classifiable under Tariff Item No.8529 as parts of Television. Aggrieved ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5. Heard the learned A.R. who has agreed that the case on hand is squarely covered by the said Final Order dated 10.06.2015. 6. We find that the issue involved in the present appeal is dispute on classification of LCD Panels imported for use in the manufacturing of Color TV. The appellant claimed classification to be under Tariff Item No.9013 80 10, whereas the learned Commissioner (Appeals) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
