TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 662X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s order upheld the demand as computed by the two lower authorities in the absence of any justification on the part of the appellant that there should be a contrary finding. The question of having exceeded the jurisdiction in re-classifying the goods, which the first appellate authority is alleged to have done, does not alter the confirmation of demand of duty which is the prime purpose of the adju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2018 in appeal no. E/102 638/2009, of mistake claimed to be apparent on record. 2. Learned Counsel for applicant submits that, in fifth paragraph, the impugned order has been upheld while at the same time classifying the disputed goods, viz., trimmings and end-cuts arising during the course of manufacture of stitched bonded fabrics of glass to be waste and scrap classifiable under head ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by upholding the order of the original authority. It is also observed that in the other order, which was also impugned before the Tribunal, the first appellate authority had held the goods to be of a different heading but, at the same time, upheld the order of the original authority to confirm demand of duty as well as the imposition of penalty. 5. It would, therefore, appear that the Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
