9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (4) TMI 488X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er]. On hearing both the sides, the appeal itself was taken up for final disposal. 2. The appellants manufactured medicaments and cleared them as P or P medicines under sub-heading No. 3003.10 from 1992-96. From time to time classification lists were approved and the goods were cleared on payment of duty. In June 1996, some preventive officers visited the factory and in the face of the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I have carefully considered the facts of the case, findings given in the impugned order and law on the subject. I find that, the issue in the present case is regarding classification of the product which have been contested by the departmental officers and differential duty recovered from the appellant without even issue of basic SCN and the appellant had contested this ad hoc recovery and file ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isdictional Commissioner who if satisfied of the merits of the claim made by the preventive officers; would direct the jurisdictional authorities to redetermine the classification. At all time, the re-determination would only be perspective. It could be retrospective if the Department holds that the original classification was arrived at by a fraud committed by the assessees. In the present case i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was wrong when there are no grounds for such presumption. It is unfortunate that the ld. Commissioner did not see it in this manner. His order of remand would not achieve anything for the assessees since in his order he has also made certain presumptions which are without basis. 5. This appeal is allowed. The proceedings are remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals). He will decide the issue i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
