TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 634X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issue of classification declared by the appellant has not been touched upon in the impugned order, the eligibility for exemption cannot be denied. As far as pressure pans are concerned, the cookers/pans/parts thereof are eligible for exemption under notification 181/88-CE which has not been rescinded even if N/N. 180/88-CE has been. In any case, it is seen that the goods in question are not pressure pans but the bottom portion which, even if designed for use with pressure cooker lid, yet remains a kitchen article entitled for exemption-under N/N. 41/94-CE. In view of the lack of a clear exposition of the issue and finding, there is no reason to deny the exemption claimed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - APPEAL NO: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. The classification list had been approved by the proper officer but, in exercise of the review jurisdiction by the Commissioner, that approval was challenged before the first appellate authority to deny the benefit of exemption notification. That authority endorsed the disallowance in relation to the goods enumerated supra leading to this appeal. However, none appeared for appellant. 4. The first appellate authority took note of three classification lists filed by appellant for declaring the goods classifiable under heading 7615 00 and 7323 00 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985; the first of these, 4A/94-95 and 5A/94-95 dated 9 th March 1994 effective from 1 st March 1994 with benefit of notification no. 180/88 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 20 for 'utensils made of aluminium'. It was also contended that the bottom pan of pressure cooker lid, classifiable under 7615 10, was not eligible for exemption under notification no. 180/88-CE at sl no. 20 available for 'utensils made of aluminium' and the exemption under notification no. 180/88CE was withdrawn with effect from 1 st March 1994. 6. Appellant, in grounds of appeal, contends that the proceedings before the first appellate authority was flawed as the authorization to file appeal was not supplied and that each approved classification list should have been challenged in separate appeals. We do not find these grounds to be valid as the proceedings were validated by the decision of the Tribunal in the first r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
