9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (9) TMI 324X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Respondents. [Order per : V.K. Agrawal, Member (T)]. - The present appeal has been filed by M/s. Plasticolor Corporation against order in Appeal Nos. 199-200/92/CE/COLLR (A) AHD, dated 25-3-1992 rejecting their refund claim for the period from 6-9-1983 to 31-7-1985 in respect of their product cable sheathing compound. 2.1 Shri Devan Parikh, ld. Advocate, submitted that the appellants ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... p;The ld. Advocate submitted that while the dispute about master batch was pending, the appellants started in 1983 manufacturing the impugned product "cable sheathing compound" which contained carbon black 2.5% as against Master batch which had almost 30% carbon black. The Department sought to classify the impugned product as master batch under Tariff Item 14-I(i)(ii); that accordingly they filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Assistant Commissioner again under Order-in-Original No. 150/88, dated 8-11-1988 held that the product was classifiable under Item ....(l) on the ground that the product was a moulding powder mainly composed of polyethylene resin as per Test report of the Chief Chemist. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order. On Appeal, the Appellate Tribunal vide Order No. 818/91-C, dated 11-12-199 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te with regard to the excisability of the product for the period from 6-9-1983 to 31-7-1985 was still pending before the Tribunal and held that their refund claim was premature. The ld. Counsel submitted that as the dispute with regard to the dutiability stands finally settled by the Appellate Tribunal in their favour, the refund was available to them that; all the orders passed including the fina ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order that the refund claim is premature is not correct. Perhaps the Tribunal's order was not before the Commissioner (Appeals) at the time he decided the appeal preferred by the appellants. We are, therefore, of the view that justice demands that the matter should be remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the appeal of the appellants afresh in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
