9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (1) TMI 344X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... harma, Member (T)]. The Collector of Customs (Appeals) by his Order-in-Appeal No. 1121/89-BLH, dated 13-6-1989 held that the appellants have not challenged classification of goods before the lower authority; that they have not even claimed alternate classification at the appellate stage. Notification No. 232/83-Cus. exempts goods falling within Chapter 38 or Chapter 84 or Chapter 85 or Chapt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 232/83-Cus., dated 18-8-1993. The Assistant Collector rejected their claim on the ground that benefit of Notification 232/83 cannot be extended to the appellants. He also observed that a scrutiny of the Bill of Entry produced by the appellants showed that the assessment was done provisonally and, therefore, the claim was rejected as premature. Against this order of the Assistant Collector, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns of the learned SDR and perused the evidence on record. We find that the appellants have been agitating rejection of their refund claim stating that they had been claiming refund in terms of Notification No. 232/83 that this Notification covered goods of Chapter 85. Therefore, they have submitting that since the claim has been filed in terms of Notification 232/83 and, therefore, it must automat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the finding of the learned Collector (Appeals) holding that Chapter 91 is not covered by Notification 232/83 and, therefore, the appellants were not entitled to the benefit of Notification 232/83. In this view of the matter, we find that the rejection of the appeal and the refund claim was valid and justified and hold accordingly. In the result, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal is re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
