1999 (7) TMI 303

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , Member (T)]. Shri Jay Savla, ld. Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant had filed the stay petition and that in the stay petition they had submitted that the Hon ble Bombay High Court had dispensed with pre-deposit of duty inasmuch as their prayers in the writ petition against Cols. A B have been granted and in those prayers they had requested for dispensing with th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... in one month of receipt of this order. As the appellants have contended that they did not have an opportunity of representing against the classification of impugned product under sub-heading 3204.29, the adjudicating authority will afford an opportunity of hearing to them for submitting their submissions on the classification aspect also. If the product is held to be excisable and chargeable to du .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... cating authority. 4. Shri Sumit K. Das, ld. DR appearing for the respondent Commissioner submits that the facts in two cases are almost similar and therefore, he has no objection if the case is remanded to the adjudicating authority for redetermining the contentions as made out in the observations of this Tribunal in the case of Phoenix Mills. 5. We have heard the rival submissions. We have .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X