TMI Blog2008 (5) TMI 60X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... after allowing the appeal filed by the revenue, we remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority, to consider whether serial No. 188 of the Notification No. 23/98 will be applicable to the products imported - C/28/2003 - A/266/2008-WZB/C-II/(C.S.T.B.), - Dated:- 12-5-2008 - S/Shri M.V. Ravindran, Member (J) and K.K. Agarwal, Member (T) Shri C. Lama, JDR, for the Appellant. Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al duty. On an appeal filed by the respondents, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order- in-original and held that the products will merit classification under CTH No. 8542.00 only. It is noticed that the Division Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Cascade Systems v. Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore as reported at 2006 (199) E.L.T. 382 (Tri.-Bang.). in an identical issue, held a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e goods that the item is a Processor. The term Processor and Microprocessor are used synonymously. Moreover, it is on record that the impugned items are actually Pentium-II/Celeron Microprocessor. In these circumstances, it is very clear that the impugned items are actually parts of Computer classifiable under 8473.30. It is also seen that in the existing Tariff Microprocessors are mentioned in 84 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o go into this issue at this juncture. At the same time we are of the considered view that if the benefit of Notification is available to the respondent, on classification under CTH 8473.30, they should be allowed to do so which needs to be addressed by adjudicating authority. As such, after allowing the appeal filed by the revenue, we remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority for the l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
