TMI Blog2008 (8) TMI 320X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us is nothing but Infra-red Lamps and there is no change in the nature and character of the goods, how can the Department charge duty on the resultant goods again – Held that demand is not sustainable - EDM-256/2004 and 394/2003 - A-809-810/KOL/2008 - Dated:- 19-8-2008 - Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Member (T) and Shri D.N. Panda, Member (J) Dr. Samir Chakraborty and Shri Abhijit Biswas, Ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellants claim the same to be classifiable under Heading 90.18 as instruments and appliances used for medical purposes. On the other hand the Department claims the goods to be Infra-red Lamps classifiable under Heading 8939.90 (sic). 3. Dr. Samir Chakraborty, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant assessee states that the impugned goods were all along being classified under Head ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... He states that in view of the continued Classification of the impugned goods under Heading 90.18 for more than a decade there is no material to change the Classification suddenly on the basis of opinion of the subsequent assessing Authorities without there being any change in the product itself. 4. We have heard learned SDR Shri J.A. Khan. Shri Khan states that the impugned goods are nothing b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under the very same I-leading, then the Department would not be justified in charging duty under the same heading again as no new product with a different characteristic has emerged. As such, we are unable to find substance in the arguments, made on behalf of the Department. On the other hand, the arguments on behalf of the assessee are supported by the technical literature as well as assessments ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
