Find a Lawyer

APPEALS NOS.24 TO 40 AND 108 TO 112 OF 2003, DECIDED ON 12TH AUGUST, 2003. versus APPEALS NOS.24 TO 40 AND 108 TO 112 OF 2003, DECIDED ON 12TH AUGUST, 2003.

Section 3, 3B, 4 (2), 9 and 35B Central Excise Duty Short Payment Appeal on Classification of Solvent Oil under Heading Appeal of Central Excise Rules, 1944, RE 7, 9, 10 and 210 PCT The tribunal was before the matter. Appellants were allegedly paying central excise duty on Solvent Oil due to incorrect certification of PCT headings and it was alleged that the appellants were grossly under-utilized due to the incorrect classification of PCT headings. Duty ie 2711 1100 instead of PCT Heading 3814 0000 was reported by Central according to Central Excise Duty. The Board of Revenue had the characteristics of the product / item in question under its letter. Aromatic material (percent) = about 10%; specific gravity = 0 722; initial boiling point = 60C (140F) and (4) final boiling point = 120oc (248F) and, in view of these properties, The item in question was clearly categorized under PCT Heading 2710 0039 because the cover output of 2710 0031 was white, with a specific gravity 0 722 to 0 800 and its initial boiling point was 150oc. And the final boiling point was more than 190oc, according to the technical literature. It says that there are 20 to 25 aro aromatics in the literature, while the aromatic content of the product was about 10% in dispute. Their standard rating for petroleum solvent grade 60/120 is further reinforced, with almost exactly the same reasons as the questions in question and which clearly stated that petroleum solvent was a product that was completely Used to contain petroleum hydrocarbons. Dispute received by payment of raw petroleum lawer from fb area from Killa Abdullah lawyer