1999 (1) TMI 128

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r the Respondent. [Order per : V.K. Ashtana, Member (T)]. In this application for COD, appellants contend that the appeal has been filed in time. However, there is a marginal delay on the basis of date of communication being 18-9-1998 and the appeal having been filed on 17-12-1998. Hence, the delay could be condoned. 2. Learned Consultant appearing for the appellants submits that this .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 83 dated 5-5-1983. However, the impugned order-in-original has held that the product is classifiable under chapter sub-heading No. 3003.39 of Central Excise Act. He submits that this was not an allegation which was responded before the adjudicating authority. Therefore, the said decision has been taken behind their back. 7. Heard Ms. Aruna Gupta, ld. JDR who reiterates the order impugned. 8. W .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X