9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 1103X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant Shri Anoop Singh, Authorised Representative for the Respondent ORDER Brief facts are that, the appellant is engaged in manufacture of articles of paper or paper board falling under chapter 48 of CETA 1985 and products of printing industry, books etc., falling under chapter 49 of CETA 1985. After the introduction of new 8 digit CETA 1985, the above products became excisable goods and were s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 23.11.2012 set aside the duty demand in respect of paper wrapper. However, the duty demand in respect of paper tag and paper trays was confirmed. 3. Against the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals), the department as well as assessee filed appeals before the Tribunal. As per Final Order No. 41417-41418/2019 dated 18.11.2019, the Tribunal set aside the demand in respect of paper tag and p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e department and set aside the sanction of refund, holding that appellant is liable to pay the duty on paper wrapper also. Aggrieved by such order passed by Commissioner (Appeals), the appellant is now before the Tribunal. 7. The Ld. Counsel, Shri N. Vishwanathan, appeared and argued for the appellant. It is submitted that, pursuant to the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 23.11.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Appeals), being an order passed against sanctioning the refund, the Commissioner (Appeals) has no jurisdiction to consider the issue of classification or demand of duty. It is prayed that the appeal may be allowed. 8. The Ld. AR Shri Harendra Singh Pal appeared for the department. The findings in paragraph 6, 7 and 8 were adverted to by the Ld. AR to argue that the appeal may be dismissed. 9. H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal order dated 23.11.2012 has become final. In such circumstances, the impugned order interfering with the classification and the demand of duty which has been already decided in favour of assessee cannot be disturbed. We therefore find that there are no grounds to reject the refund claim sanctioned by the original authority. 13. The impugned order set aside. The order passed by the original aut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
