2002 (1) TMI 824

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... spondent. [Order per : P.S. Bajaj, Member (J)]. - This appeal has been preferred by the Revenue against the impugned order-in-appeal, dated 8-8-2001 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (appeals) vide which he had reversed the order-in-original, dated 30-6-2000 of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs and dropped the demand of Rs. 10,29,639/- against the respondents. 2. The respondents were .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t the Commissioner (appeals) should have himself decided the classification dispute if he was of the opinion that the Deputy Commissioner had failed to decide the same. He could not straightway drop the demand against the respondents without recording his reasons. 4. On the other hand, the learned Counsel has contended that show cause notice was defective and the order-in-original of the Dep .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ority nor by the appellate authority i.e. Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) could not, in our view, drop the duty demand simply on the ground that the classification dispute was not decided by the Deputy Commissioner. No doubt, he could not remand the case after amendment of law, to the adjudicating authority for deciding that issue, but could easily himself .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X