1987 (9) TMI 268 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Timeliness of the appeal.
2. Classification of the product under the Central Excise Tariff.

Analysis:

1. The respondents contended that the appeal was time-barred and that the product should be classified under Tariff Item 68 instead of Tariff Item 11A (ii) of the Central Excise Tariff. However, the Tribunal found discrepancies in the references made by the respondents regarding the order-in-appeal, leading to confusion. The Tribunal determined that the appeal was filed within the limitation period based on the date of communication of the order, thus rejecting the timeliness objection raised by the respondents.

2. The appellants sought to classify the product, micro crystal, under Tariff Item 11A, while the respondents argued for classification under Tariff Item 68. The appellants relied on a previous Tribunal decision supporting their classification. The respondents also referred to the same decision but contended that the Tribunal did not adequately consider their argument regarding the origin of the micro crystal. Despite the new argument presented by the respondents, the Tribunal upheld its earlier decision and classified the product under Tariff Item 11A, in line with the appellants' claim. Consequently, the impugned order was modified, and the classification done by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Bombay, was restored. The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellants, resulting in liability on the respondents.

This judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi, addressed the issues of timeliness of the appeal and the proper classification of the product under the Central Excise Tariff. The Tribunal dismissed the timeliness objection raised by the respondents, finding that the appeal was filed within the limitation period. Regarding the classification of the product, the Tribunal upheld the appellants' claim and classified the product under Tariff Item 11A, contrary to the respondents' argument for classification under Tariff Item 68. The decision modified the impugned order and restored the classification done by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Bombay, resulting in liability on the respondents.