9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (10) TMI 126X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fly stated the facts of the case are as follows :- 2. The appellant herein imported a part described as regulating sensor . They cleared the same on payment of duty. Later on they filed claim for excess duty paid by them. They claimed the benefit of Notification No. 172/89-Cus. in their refund application claiming that the goods are assessable under Tariff Heading 90.33. The said application wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellants before the original authority, the appellants made an alternative plea before the lower appellate authority stating that the said part would fall under Tariff sub-heading 8448.20, being part of Texturing machine falling under Tariff Heading 84.44. This plea of the appellants has not been considered by the lower appellate authority except by saying as follows : Regarding the change of cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsequently the benefit of the said notification under Sl. No. 35 of the table by stating that change of classification of the item is neither appropriate nor desirable. We are unable to understand the said finding of the lower appellate authority. Question of classification is a question of law is a fairly well settled proposition and it can be taken at any stage so long as the facts available on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he lower authority is not correct inasmuch as it is admitted to the Revenue Authorities that the part in question has been used by the appellants in their own machines and not further sold to the customer. Therefore, relying on Bombay High Court judgment in the case of Solar Pesticides reported in 1992 (57) E.L.T. 201 the doctrine of unjust enrichment cannot be applied to the present case. This vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
