TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 1139X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... td [ 2022 (4) TMI 732 - SUPREME COURT] as well as Kunjal Synergies Pvt. Ltd Vs. C.C., Mundar [ 2023 (9) TMI 730 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] of this bench only, wherein 95% distillation had taken place below 210 degree C and therefore interpreting at in the above said Chapter note as upto the benefit was allowed by classifying the goods under Customs Tariff Heading 2710 1990 and rejecting department s classification under CTH 2710 12. We, therefore, agree with the aforesaid decision and hold that the classification made by the appellant is correct. Appeal is therefore allowed with consequential relief. - HON'BLE MEMBER (TECHNICAL), MR. RAJU And HON'BLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL), MR. SOMESH ARORA Shri Vikas Mehta, Consultant for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thority. Aggrieved, appellant has filed the present appeal. The appellants made the following submissions: 3.2 Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise versus Krishna Technochem Pvt. Ltd., 2022 (4) TMI 732 - SUPREME COURT that the word used in sub-heading notes is at and not up to . 3.3 The above decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court has been duly followed by Hon'ble Tribunal at Ahmedabad in the case of Kunjal Synergies Pvt. Ltd. versus C.C., Mundra, 2023 (9) TMI 730 AHMEDABAD where 95% distillation took place below 210 degree C. On this basis, classification under CTH 2710 1990 was upheld (and department's classification under CTH 2710 12 was discarded). 4. Learned A.R, while rely ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ind that this issue is similar to the one decided by the Hon ble SUPREME COURT in the matter of Krishna Technochem Pvt. Ltd cited (supra) as well as Kunjal Synergies Pvt. Ltd Vs. C.C., Mundar cited (supra) of this bench only, wherein 95% distillation had taken place below 210 degree C and therefore interpreting at in the above said Chapter note as upto the benefit was allowed by classifying the goods under Customs Tariff Heading 2710 1990 and rejecting department s classification under CTH 2710 12. We, therefore, agree with the aforesaid decision and hold that the classification made by the appellant is correct. 7. Appeal is therefore allowed with consequential relief. ( Pronounced in the open Court on 22.02.2024 ) - - TaxTMI - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
