9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (1) TMI 253X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fect that TI-18 CET covered fibres and yarn only and not waste and there no duty was payable by them and that they would be claiming refund of the duty paid till then. In the said letter they referred to the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of M/s. Ahmedabad Manufacturing and Calico Printing Company Ltd. (1976 Cen Cus 25-D) in support of their contention that unless a particular commodity is included in the tariff, entry itself no duty can be demanded thereon on the ground that the same is mentioned in a notification stipulating for payment of duty at a particular rate. After some correspondence the appellants received a reply from the Assistant Collector dated 29/30-5-1978 under which the Assistant Collector informed them tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Collector was merely in the form of a letter and not an order and that the same had been passed without a hearing being given to the appellants to represent their case and that the letter further did not indicate that it was open to the appellants to prefer an appeal against the same and in these circumstances the said letter would not constitute an appealable order and that on the other hand it would be the communication dated 19/23.10.78 that would be the appealable order since it is in the said letter that a direction had also been given that the appellants may prefer an appeal if they felt aggrieved. In this connection Shri Kohli relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Brooke Bond India Ltd. (1983 E.L.T. 1169). On the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... overed from them on the post drawn waste had been illegally recovered and therefore they would be claiming a refund thereof. They had followed it up by a subsequent letter dated 18-4-1978. It is thereafter that the Assistant Collector had under letter dated 9-5-1978 called for a copy of the letter dated 29.9.1977 and, after considering the representation in the said letter dated 29.9.1977, sent to the appellants his communication dated 29/30.5.78. We extract below the said letter in full as the same is relevant. The letter reads as follows : Please refer to your letter No. W-442/877-78/ dated 29.9.1977. The matter has been examined. The wastes arising at the Post Drawn Stage were excisable as Fibre but if they belong to the categorie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... feel aggrieved by the said decision, you may resort to the provisions of appeal in Section 35 of the Central Excises Salt Act, 1944. It may be seen that this letter is merely a reiteration of the finding of the Assistant Collector on the issue as communicated under the earlier letter dated 29/30-5-78. It may also be noted that it is against the said decision (dated 29/30-5-78) that the Assistant Collector advices the appellants to file an appeal if they were aggrieved with the said order. In view of the above circumstances the appellants cannot justifiably contend that it is this later communication dated 19/23/10-78 that constituted an appealable order on their representation and not the earlier letter dated 29/30-5-78. 8. Accordi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
