9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 652X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Subramaniyan, AC (AR), for the Respondent. Per: B. Ravichandran The appeal is against order dated 24-078-2009 of commissioner of central excise (appeal) Chennai. 2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of 'miscellaneous chemical products' used in the metallurgical industries. The dispute arose re-garding classification of 'Sifton' and 'Sifteron'. The Revenue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ine with the orders passed by the jurisdictional authority. It is further submitted that the original order at para 7.4 reproduced the Notification No. 37/94-C.E. Sl. No. 12 of the Notification mentioned as "6909.90, 68.07, 69.09 [other than 6909.30 and 69.11] for 30% duty" Sl. No. 13 is for all the goods of the Chapter 69 except those mentioned in Sl. Nos. 1 to 12. The notification as mentioned i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... get papers of 2010. It is very clear that Sl. No. 12 of the notification was wrongly printed in publication cannot be the basis for the claiming of lower rate of duty. 5. We have heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 6. We have perused the notification circulated to the field after Budget 2010. The signed notification issued by the Ministry clearly includes CETH 6911 and is clearly co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
