https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44434 Hypalon was held classifiable as synthetic rubber, not synthetic resin, for customs duty purposes, following an earlier Division Bench decision on the same product and classification question. The duty liability was therefore to be assessed under the synthetic rubber tariff heading in favour of the assessee. On refund, the Court did not order payment directly but granted liberty to apply before the Assistant Collector of Customs. That authority was directed to decide the refund claim within two months after hearing both sides, considering necessary evidence, and by a reasoned order. en-us Thu, 21 Sep 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 26 Jun 2010 11:52:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44434 Hypalon was held classifiable as synthetic rubber, not synthetic resin, for customs duty purposes, following an earlier Division Bench decision on the same product and classification question. The duty liability was therefore to be assessed under the synthetic rubber tariff heading in favour of the assessee. On refund, the Court did not order payment directly but granted liberty to apply before the Assistant Collector of Customs. That authority was directed to decide the refund claim within two months after hearing both sides, considering necessary evidence, and by a reasoned order. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 21 Sep 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44434