9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (6) TMI 175X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gnment of bone cement (Simplex RO). The goods were assessed @ 120% + 20% AD + 40% CVD as a Polymer under Heading 39.01/06 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Dr. Tanna did not agree to the assessment and filed a refund claim. The said claim was rejected by the Assistant Collector on the ground that the importer had not specified any heading under which refund was claimed. Dr. Tanna, thereafter, filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... file to the Central Government inspite of the time bar as the order-in-appeal was communicated on 27-2-1979 while the Show Cause Notice had reportedly been issued on 2-8-1980. Dr. Tanna was heard personally also by the Central Government on 12-4-1982. He stated during this hearing that he had not received the Show Cause Notice dated 2-8-1980. He added that some other party had cleared identical g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... even today for the hearing. The case was, therefore, taken up on merits in the light of his written reply and oral plea during the personal hearing before the Central Government. The Department's Representative relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Geep Flashligh Industries (AIR 1977 S.C. 456) to say that since this was a case of erroneous refund ordered by the Appellate Collector ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... regarded as a synthetic resin or plastic material of Heading 39 CTA. At the same time, it was also not a medical appliance like plates, nails etc., which were inserted inside the human body to hold together two parts of a broken bone or for similar treatment of fractures. The classification of bone cement as a medical appliance under Heading 90.19 CTA as ordered by the Appellate Collector was als ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
