9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (2) TMI 135X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... manufactures switches used in those torches. Question arose whether these switches should be classified under Tariff Item No. 61 or under Tariff Item No. 68. The duty under T.I. 61 is higher than the rate under T.I. 68. Tariff Item 61 reads as follows :- "Electric Lighting Fittings namely :- Switches, Plugs, and Sockets, all kinds; Chokes and Starters for fluorescent Tubes." Tariff Item 68 is, of course, residuary item and it is not in dispute before us that if the said switches, do not fall under Item 61, they would fall under Tariff Item 68. 3. In the first instance, the Assistant Collector/Appropriate Authority decided by his order dated 16-12-1982 that the said switches must be classified under Tariff Item 61. The assessee preferred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant Collector does not disclose his mental process nor does it indicate the grounds for his decision, I refrain from commenting on the merits of the issues involved in this case. 6. For the reasons discussed above, I set aside, without prejudice, the Assistant Collector's Orders. He may, however, reconsider the matter de novo after disclosing to the appellants the grounds on which reclassification of torch switches is proposed and also after giving them a fresh and full opportunity to present their case." 4. In pursuance of the appellate order the Assistant Collector/Appropriate Authority took up the matter again. He fixed a date, namely, 17-2-1982 for oral hearing. The petitioner appeared by a counsel and stated that - "At present it is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d, Mr. Katju, learned counsel for the Revenue, contended that the writ petition itself is misconceived and not to be entertained inasmuch as the petitioner has an alternative remedy by way of an appeal provided by statute. He says that the petitioner must be relegated to the remedy of appeal. 7. This writ petition was filed in February 1983. It was entertained and the respondents were called upon to file a counter. Initially, an order of stay was also granted on 1-3-1983 which appears to have been vacated on 6-11-1986. 8. On a perusal of the order of the Assistant Collector/Appropriate Authority, impugned herein, we are of the opinion, that it is not strictly in accordance with the appellate order aforesaid. In his representation the peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
