9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 860X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5 working days in advance - After the personal hearing, should appellant wishes to file any written submissions recording what transpired during the course of personal hearing, same shall be filed within 3 working days of personal hearing and that shall also be dealt with in the final order. Appeal disposed off. - K.R. SHRIRAM JITENDRA JAIN, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. V. Sridharan, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Sriram Sridharan Ms. Srinidhi Ganesan. For the Respondent no. 1: Mr. Siddharth Chandrashekhar a/w Mr. Umesh Gupta. For the Respondent no. 2: Mr. Harshad Shingnapurkar. P.C. : 1. This is a statutory appeal filed under Section 28KA of the Customs Act, 1962 ( the said Act ) impugning an order dated 8th July 2022 passed by respondent no. 6. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... closed and more importantly these information were not communicated to appellant for its response. 7. The second reason for our decision is in paragraph 6.7 of impugned order. Respondent no. 6 states that the product in the present case is different from that of the product in case of Tetrogon Chemie (Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore) Vs. Tetrogon Chemie P. Ltd. 2001 (132) E.L.T. 525 (S.C.). The product described in the impugned order appears to us to be the same in both the cases. In our view, respondent no. 6 should have elaborated as to how two are different. We say so because both appears to be the same because the order passed by Central Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in Tetragon Chemie Vs. Collector of Central Ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t been done. 11. Mr. Chandrashekhar submitted that respondent no. 6 has, in the impugned order, stated that he has considered all materials placed before him in respect of the subject products and has gone through submissions made by appellant during the personal hearing. In our view, that would not suffice because he was, in such a case, also duty bound to deal with the submissions of appellant and give the reason as to why he disagreed with the submissions of the appellant. 12. Mr. Chandrashekhar states that Explanatory Notes to the Harmonized System of Nomenclature (HSN) would answer the issue involved. In our view, though these have been referred to, they have not been considered or discussed in proper perspective. 13. In these circumst ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
