9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (9) TMI 236X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Tariff Heading 85.44, sub-heading No. 8544.00 and claimed rate of duty at 20% ad valorem. However, the Assistant Collector vide his adjudication Order No. 26/85.44/3/P-5/90, dated 11-7-1990 approved the rate of the aforesaid waste and scrap of defective wires and cables at 25% ad valorem inasmuch as the relevant notification giving the benefit of lower rate of duty of 20% was not considered to be available to the said defective and damaged wires and cables because these were not used for overground and underground telecommunication cables. 1.2 On appeal before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), the appellant herein did not succeed. The said Collector (Appeals) passed an Order-in-Appeal No. 1/Bol./91, dated 4-1-1991 which is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le to duty. (3) That the Assistant Collector rejected the classification list without consideration and giving opportunity to explain the matter in gross violation of natural justice. 1.5 In the light of these directions, the Assistant Collector has examined the whole matter right from the beginning as is apparent from the Order-in-Original No. 15/De Novo/85.44 (3) T-5/2/94, dated 25-4-1994. This order holds as follows :- I hereby order M/s. NICCO Corporation Ltd., Telelink Division, Kalyani being represented through Shri N.K. Chatterjee, Manager (Commercial) to re-submit the classification list in two parts showing excisable and non-excisable goods separately wastes and scraps generated during the course of manufacturing and having ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i S.N. Ghosh for the Revenue submits that while the Order-in-Appeal dated 22-7-1992 was obtained from the Collector (Appeals) by the appellants herein, they did not point out the fact that they have already challenged the Order-in-Appeal No. 1/Bol./91, dated 4-1-1991 (impugned before us today in the present proceedings). He submits that had that been pointed out by the appellant before the Collector (Appeals), the Collector (Appeals) might not have given remand direction as he did in his order dated 22-7-1992 and, therefore, he submits that the order has been obtained from the Collector without mentioning the material facts before the Collector (Appeals). 4. Learned advocate in his rejoinder submits that the issue in the present appeal is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
