TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1990 (1) TMI 262
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Respondent. [Order per : D.M. Vasavada, Member (J)]. - This application preferred by the appellant arises out of Order No. 128/88C dated 19-2-1988 passed by this Tribunal in Appeal No. E/1869/86-C. 2. Facts, briefly stated, are that the appellant manufactured PVC 'Master Batches' and had been classifying the said product under T.I. 14.I(i) (ii) of the CET. After amendment of Tariff Item 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ef and adjustment as may be called for. The appeal is disposed of in the foregoing terms." 3. The department having classified the product under T.I.14. I(i)(ii) during the period 7-8-1985 to 31-1-1986 assessed duty accordingly. As contended in this misc. application as the dispute of classification was taken in appeal, there was no need for following procedure of payment of duty under protest, b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appellant's classification under T.I. 68 with' consequential relief and adjustment as may be called for which means that the duty paid by the appellant under T.I.14.I(i)(ii) under protest may be adjusted towards duty leviable under T.I. 68 and remaining amount, if any, has to be refunded to the appellant." While applying that the order of the Tribunal, claim of duty under T.1. 68 works out to Rs. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was held illegal by the High Court and the Revenue wanted to retain the duty so collected contending that the commodity manufactured by the assessee fell directly in T.I. 18 CET and in that connection, the Hon'ble High Court has held as under : "If the levy and assessment of goods under one particular Tariff Item is held to be illegal, the department cannot refuse to refund the amount on the grou....