TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 848X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the said proviso. A prior notice and time limit is contemplated. The contention of the Appellant that such a notice, even if it is issued, was beyond time even on the date the Commissioner passed the order can be made by the Appellant before the Commissioner (Appeals) in the remanded proceedings. Therefore, the learned Counsel for the Respondent is right in contending that a question of law as proposed does not arise from the impugned order. - appeal disposed off. - CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 38 OF 2019, 39 OF 2019 - - - Dated:- 16-1-2020 - NITIN JAMDAR AND M.S. KARNIK, JJ. Mr. Sriram Sridharan a/w. Akhilesh Kangsia for the Appellant Mr. J.B. Mishra for the Respondent ORDER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve been assessed under Entry 53.05 when the Appellant had claimed same assessment under 52.01 which was not correct and therefore Section 28 of Customs Act was invoked. An order came to be passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs declaring the classification to be under 53.05 and not under 52.01 as claimed by the Appellant and the demand raised by the show cause notice was confirmed. 5. The Appellant filed the Appeals before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) recorded a finding that Kapok has not undergone any treatment indicating that their use as textile material and cannot be classified under heading 53.05. The Commissioner (Appeals) also did not accept the contention of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... exercise ought to have been preceded by a notice and that too which is specified under Section 28 of the Act. The learned Counsel for the Respondents on the other hand submitted that the order is only of remand. There is no finding against the Appellant in this order and all the contentions that the Appellant wishes to raise in these Appeals can be urged before the Commissioner (Appeals). 8. Firstly there is no finding in the order of the Tribunal as to whether the observations of the Commissioner (Appeals) that Kapok could not be classified under heading 53.05, are correct or not. No appeal was filed by the Respondents on this count. The question would now remain whether the Kapok could be classified under heading 14.04. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
