https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105724 A classification change from Heading 2621 to Heading 2811.90 could not be sustained where the Commissioner (Appeals) reversed the original view without recording plausible reasons. The product had been consistently declared under Heading 2621 and the manufacturing process remained unchanged, so the unexplained shift in classification was treated as an improper adjudication on classification. The classification order was therefore set aside, and the matter was remanded for de novo adjudication after granting the appellants a reasonable opportunity of hearing. en-us Fri, 06 Sep 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 07 Mar 2012 12:43:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105724 A classification change from Heading 2621 to Heading 2811.90 could not be sustained where the Commissioner (Appeals) reversed the original view without recording plausible reasons. The product had been consistently declared under Heading 2621 and the manufacturing process remained unchanged, so the unexplained shift in classification was treated as an improper adjudication on classification. The classification order was therefore set aside, and the matter was remanded for de novo adjudication after granting the appellants a reasonable opportunity of hearing. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 06 Sep 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105724