1999 (2) TMI 430

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... (J)]. The appellant filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal dated 31-3-92 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals). In the impugned order, the Collector of Central Excise held that the appeal is not filed against the adjudication order but against a letter asking the appellant to pay demand. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as non-maintainable. 2. Heard oth sides. 3. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... pellant demanding duty and these demands were later on confirmed. 4. Vide letter dated 16-1-92, the Assistant Collector directed the appellant to deposit the amount of Rs. 5,35,632.40. The appellant filed appeal against this letter, which was dismissed vide impugned order. 5. From the record, we find that the classification issue in respect of all the goods in dispute, was decided against the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nication asking them to pay demand after completion of necessary proceedings and after dismissal of appellants writ petition by the High Court. From the contention of the appellant it is obvious to me that the demand is consequential in this case. The present appeal also cannot be treated as an appeal against the earlier A.O. Nos. 14/91 and 15/91 confirming classification and demands. In this cas .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X