9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (12) TMI 737X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt. [Order per : P.S. Bajaj, Member (J)]. This appeal has been filed by the appellants M/s. India Polyfibres Ltd., Barabanki, U.P. against the impugned Order-in-Original dated 31-3-2000 passed by the Commissioner vide which he had classified the goods crimped uncut waste under sub-heading 5501.20 of the CETA as polyester tow or staple fibre and also confirmed the duty demands on them as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amended on 29-7-1987 for payment of duty amount of Rs. 92,45,088.76 and another dated 3-1-1989 for payment of Rs. 67,79,179.57. After getting their reply, the duty demand was confirmed on them. They challenged that order of the Collector (now Commissioner) before the Tribunal who vide Final Order No. E/33 34/ 94-D dated 21-1-1994 set aside the same and remanded the matter to the adjudicating au ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h the record. 7. The learned Counsel for the appellants at the very outset, has stated that the impugned order of the Commissioner is liable to be set aside on the simple ground that he had failed to comply with the directions given by the Tribunal vide order dated 21-1-1994 while remanding the matter for fresh decision. According to the Counsel, the Tribunal directed the Commissioner (adjudicat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore us that the Commissioner while passing the impugned order had failed to comply with the directions of the Tribunal given in the earlier remand order. He has no objection to the remand of the case again to the Commissioner. 9. We have gone through the record. The perusal of the file shows that when the earlier duty demand was confirmed on the appellants on their goods crimped uncut waste by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respect thereof, afresh. But the perusal of the impugned order shows that the Commissioner had failed to comply with these directions of the Tribunal and only reproduced the earlier order. Therefore, the impugned order passed by him cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside. 10. Accordingly, the impugned order of the Commissioner is set aside. The matter is sent back to the adjudicating a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
