2001 (2) TMI 854

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... [Order per : Gowri Shankar, Member (T)]. - The question for consideration in this appeal is the classification of a range of product manufactured by the appellant and marketed under the brand name Pyroclean-17. In his order passed on 14-1-1992, the Collector (Appeals) had confirmed the classification of Pyroclean-17 under heading 3202.90 of the Tariff, and he has expressly said that this concl .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 2.90. 3. The assessee appealed this order, and the Collector (Appeals) vide his order passed on 25-2-1994 confirmed the classification of these seven products. He, however, remanded to the Assistant Collector for the classification of the other 36 products. 4. We are concerned in this appeal with the order dated 6-12-1993 of the Assistant Collector of the product Pyroclean-17 and other .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... roclean set aside the clearance which could not be sustained. She therefore sent the matter for recalculation of the duty. Hence this appeal. 5. The appeal does not indicate what the goods are. The appeal only contents that the order has been passed without giving the appellant an opportunity of hearing. While extensive case law is cited, there is nothing to say why the appellant did not rep .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X