9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (12) TMI 153X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder 4304.00 Customs Tariff Act, 1975 which covers artificial fur and articles thereof and under heading 4301.00 under CETA, 1985 which covers manufacture of furskin and artificial fur. The Customs House accepted the import licence produced for artificial fur. The goods were also tested by the Dy. Chief Chemist in the Customs House who reported that the sample is the form of a cut piece of light yellow coloured pile type of fabric having furskin like appearance on one side and that it is composed of loose knitted fabric with fibres of short length raised on one side, the other side being plain and that the base fabric is made of man-made filament yarn polyester and the short length raised fibre is made of man-made staple fibres Acrylic type ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eading 4304 for classification should have issued an order for the consequential refund due to the appellants which will according to the appellants be due to them on the classification being adopted under Chapter 43 for the purposes of customs duty as well as additional duty of customs. The learned Counsel further urged that the goods cannot be classified under Heading 60.01 because assessment of the goods is based on the finding to be artificial fur which is specifically covered by sub-heading 4304.00 CTA and if this is so, it cannot be differently classified under Chapter 60 for purposes of additional duty of customs. The classification of the goods under Chapter 43 based on the test result is further indicated because of Chapter Note 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oted that the prayer in the appeal before us is also as follows :- That the order so passed by the learned Collector of Customs and Excise (Appeals) be modified to the extent that the refund so claimed may be al lowed. That the order of the lower authorities be rectified so as to make it that the appeal may not be rejected but the refund so due on the basis of the correct classification be granted to the appellant. In these circumstances, the question is only one of quantification of refund if any which may be due to the appellants consequent upon the finding that the goods are classifiable under Chapter 43 of CTA and CETA. There is, we find an ambiguity in this regard. It is not clear whether at any time this quantification has bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
