9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (11) TMI 352X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... these products and the rival entries were 4818.90 (now 4823.90) and 3921.37. The appellants had filed refund claims claiming classification under the former, but the Department has denied the same. 3. Their main contention was that since their products are paper based decorative laminated sheets, they were classifiable under 4823.90 and not under Chapter 39 as the materials used are classifiable under 4818.90 and not under 3901 or 3902 and in this connection they would like to draw attention to Rule 1 of Rules of Interpretation of the Tariff on the one hand and the Tribunal s orders in similar cases on the other. Since the Department had not agreed with their contention and had directed them to file the classification under Chapter 39, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ral Excise duty paid prior to 10-9-1988 are time barred as per provisions in Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The goods are rigid sheets of plastic classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 3921.37 as per Order-in-Original No. 4/87 (Valuation) dated 29-1-1987. This order has been upheld by Collector (Appeals) vide his Order-in-Appeal No. 121/CE/JPR/89, dated 16-10-1989. Thus, no excess Central Excise duty has been paid by the assessee. The amount of Central Excise duty sought to be refunded has already been collected by the assessee from the customers and in case the refund is granted to the assessee, it will amount to be unjust enrichment in view of Hon ble Bombay High Court s decision in case of M/s. Roplas (India) Ltd., 1988 (38 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o violation of principles of natural justice, inasmuch as the appellants were heard both at the original as well as the appellate stage. Their reply to the show cause notice as well as their submissions at the time of personal hearing were considered by the authorities below as apparent from the record of the order-in-original and order-in-appeal. Repeated adjournments is not a right of the parties. Similarly, repeat filing of written briefs is not essential and once the officers have granted personal hearing, they have the authority and discretion to proceed on the basis of the material on record without waiting any further. 7. At the same time, the learned Counsel s argument that Tribunal s orders in cases of similar commodities were re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shable, it was required to be so stated. Further issue relating to classification of decorative laminates has reached Supreme Court level and the case law in this respect was required to be looked into. It is noteworthy that, inter alia, process of manufacture, composition and use are important factors in determining classification of such products, but there is no discussion about these aspects. In so far as the question of time bar is concerned, it has been repeatedly held by this Tribunal that the procedure prescribed in Rule 233B is merely directory and not mandatory and, therefore, if there was a substantive compliance with the provisions and the appellants had staked their claim or recorded their protest in any form, the relevant fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
