9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (9) TMI 114X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g 24.04, the appellants should get the same benefit. Since the matter had not been squarely dealt with on facts at any stage by any of the authorities below, it was not possible for learned Counsel to give us the reasons for drawing this distinction between the two manufacturers and differently classify what were alleged to be materially the same product. We deem it appropriate to set aside the order of the Tribunal and remand the matter back to the Tribunal for considering whether the product and process followed by M/s. Chandulal K. Patel & Co. is the same as that of the appellants. - 7022-7023 of 1994 - - - Dated:- 12-9-2002 - Ruma Pal and S.N. Variava, JJ. [Order]. - The appellants before us have impugned the decision of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the product and process of M/s. Chandulal K. Patel and Company. However, the Excise Authorities decided against the appellants without heeding such request. On 4-8-88 a decision was taken by the Assistant Collector to classify the appellants' product under Tariff Heading 24.04. On 11-8-88 a sample of the appellants' product was taken by the respondents but returned within one week without testing on the ground that the issue was being finalised by the Assistant Collector. In the appeal preferred to the Collector, the appellants again raised the issue specifically that the process followed by and the product of the appellants were identical with that of M/s. Chandulal K.P. Patel and Company and that the appellants product should be similarly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce the latter had been exempted from paying any central excise duty on the ground that their product was classifiable under Tariff Heading 24.04, the appellants should get the same benefit. 6.At the hearing today we sought an explanation from the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue Authorities as to why different stands had been taken in the cases of M/s. Chandulal K. Patel Company and the appellant. Since the matter had not been squarely dealt with on facts at any stage by any of the authorities below, it was not possible for learned Counsel to give us the reasons for drawing this distinction between the two manufacturers and differently classify what were alleged to be materially the same product. 7.In the circumstanc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
