9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (1) TMI 92X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll pending. In the appeal the Collector was within jurisdiction in so far as he held that the order dated 31st July, 1984, classifying the corrugated sheets was incorrect but, his further direction was not. The scope of the appeal did not relate to a demand for duty for the period 1st August, 1983 to 16th March, 1985, nor was there a claim that duty should be paid first under Tariff Item 25(13) on plain sheets and again, after their corrugation, under Tariff Item 68. The appeals must, therefore, be allowed and the impugned orders of the Collector (Appeals) set aside in so far as they direct payment of duty on plain flat sheets of iron and steel first at the rate applicable under T.I. 25 and again, after corrugation, under T.I. 68. The de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lector on 28th May, 1985; it demanded from the appellant the sum of Rs. 1,07,51,636.16 as duty upon the corrugated sheets manufactured by the appellants during the period November, 1984, to 16th March, 1985. (Further proceedings upon this show cause-cum-demand notice are still pending). On 3rd July, 1985, the Assistant Collector, as directed by the Collector on 28th May, 1985, filed an appeal against the order dated 31st July, 1984. The appeal contended that corrugated sheets were not correctly classifiable under Tariff Item 25 prior to the amendment made on 17th March, 1985, to the Explanation in Tariff Item 25. On 31st October, 1985, the Collector (Appeals) set aside the order of the Assistant Collector dated 31st July, 1984. He further o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter should be remanded to a learned Single Judge. The Division Bench noted this, went into the merits on its own and came to the conclusion that the impugned order did not suffer from any irregularity or illegality. This is the order now under challenge. 5.Having heard learned Counsel, we are satisfied that the impugned order did suffer from illegality and irregularity. The appeal that was filed on 3rd July, 1985, pursuant to the view taken on 28th May, 1985, related only to the classification of the corrugated sheets. In so far as duty for the period November, 1984, to 16th March, 1985, was concerned, the appellants had already been issued with a show cause-cum-demand notice on 29th May, 1985, and the procedings thereunder were and are s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
