9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (11) TMI 385X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the Respondent. [Order per : P.S. Bajaj, Member (J)]. This appeal has been directed by the appellants against the impugned order-in-appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the order-in-original. 2. The issue in this appeal relates to the classification of the goods (HDPE) manufactured by the appellants and the differential duty payable by them. 3. The facts are n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ginal which had been affirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 4. We have heard both sides and gone through the record. So far as the change in the classification of the goods manufactured by the appellants is concerned, the same, in our view, cannot be disputed by them. The Board had the power under Section 37B of the Act to issue the Circular for the purpose of uniformity in the classification o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rming the differential duty from 24-9-1992 against the appellants, cannot be sustained and deserves to be modified. The differential duty would be payable by the appellants from 5-11-1992 onwards till the date mentioned in the show cause notice i.e. 6-12-1992. 5. The learned counsel has, however, contended that the appellants are entitled to the Modvat credit also on the inputs used by them in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... view, this aspect of the matter regarding the availability of Modvat credit to the appellants deserves to be examined by the adjudicating authority before working out the differential duty payable by them. Such a relief was allowed in the case of H.M. Bags, supra, by the Special Bench of the Tribunal in similar circumstances. 7. In view of the discussion made above, the impugned order of the Com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
