TMI Blog2008 (8) TMI 151X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Member (T) Shri T. Viswanathan, Advocate, for the Appellant. Dr. T. Tiju, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per M.V. Ravindran, Member (J)]. - This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. 349/2002-MCH dated 28-6-2002 by which the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the order of confiscation of the machinery imported by the appellant under Chapter Heading 84.79 but denied the exemption of Notification No. 17/2001-Cus. dated 1-3-2001. 2. The facts that arise for consideration are that the appellant imported the machinery "Automatic Wrap and Stacking Machine". The appellant filed Bills of Entry classifying the same under sub-heading 8422.40 of the Customs Tariff as wrapping machine. The adjudicating authority deni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tention to the Chapter Headings 8422 and 8479. It is his submission that for the time being they are accepting the classification but claimed the benefit of notification no. 17/2001. He draws our attention to serial number 235 of Notification 17/2001. He submits that the very same issue under the said notification was before the Division Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Panacea Biotec Ltd. v. CC, Delhi as reported at 2004 (170) E.L.T. 21 (Tri.-Del.), and is in favour of the appellant. 4. The learned JDR on the other hand submits that the machinery in question does not produce any commodity, which is marketable. It is his submission that the products, which are manufactured by the machine are only intermediate goods and are not m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arned Counsel deserves to be accepted. From the record, we find that the appellants had imported machinery known as 'Fermentor' from Germany. The dispute initially arose about the classification of the same, as the appellants sought classification under CTH 8419.89, while the Department wanted to classify the same under CTH 8479.89. The dispute was resolved ultimately by the Tribunal in an appeal filed by the appellants against the order of the adjudicating authority who refused to accept the classification as profounded by them, by holding the classification under sub-heading 8479.89 of the CT vide Final Order dated 8-11-2002. The Tribunal, however, remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for considering the eligibility of the ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
