9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 420X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri Vijay Shetty, Sr. Manager for Appellant Shri H.M. Dixit, Asstt. Commr. (A.R) for respondent ORDER The fact of the case is that the appellants were engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods such as HDPE/PP Woven Sacks falling under Chapter sub-heading No. 3923.90, Kraft Lined Bags and HDPE Fabric laminated with Kraft Paper LDPE both falling under Chapter sub-heading 5909.00. The classifications of the said products were approved by the department since 1991 under the above mentioned chapter sub-heading. Later on the department changed the classification of Kraft Lined Bags and HDPE Fabric laminated with Kraft Paper LDPE vide order-in-original No. 1/95/A.C.Dn.X dt. 6.2.1995, classifying the above products unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of ₹ 20 lakhs. However, the request for interest was not considered. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) which was rejected vide impugned order, therefore this appeal before me. 2. Shri Vijay Shetty, Ld. Sr. Manager appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the refund of pre-deposit of ₹ 20 lakhs was matured immediately after 3 months from the Tribunal s order whereby the issue of classification was settled. Accordingly the adjudicating authority was supposed to grant the refund immediately after 3 months from the date of the Tribunal s order. Since, the adjudicating authority for no rhyme or reason sat on the Tribunal s order for 5 years. The appellant is clear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the date of the Tribunal s order which he failed to do so. From the record, it clearly appears that there was no reason for the adjudicating authority to keep the de novo adjudication pending for 5 years. The Tribunal has clearly ordered that the classification of goods shall be under heading 63.01 and further matter was remanded only to determine the differential duty, if any, arise. As per the adjudicating authority s order on remand, no differential duty arise that means after deciding the matter by the Tribunal no duty was payable by the appellant. Therefore the entire amount of pre-deposit of ₹ 20 lakhs was refundable to the appellant within 3 months from the date of Tribunal s order. As regard the contention of both the lo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
