1992 (3) TMI 192

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ith Notification No. 136/86 as amended by Notification No. 44/86. The goods were assessed to duty under Heading No. 3403.99 at 150% + Rs. 15/- per kg. + 45% + C.V.D. Rs. 3.500/- P.M.T. without extending the benefit of Notification No. 136/86 (as amended). The appellants filed a refund claim seeking re-assessment of the goods under Heading No. 3402.19 read with Notification No. 136/86 (as amended) @ 60% + 40% + C.V.D. 12%. The Assistant Collector rejected the refund claim on the grounds that Heading No. 3402.19 covered Surface Active Agents, whereas the goods on test had been found as "Aerosol preparation containing Polyorgano Silicone Compound (Silicone oil) in Volatile Organic Liquid etc." The appellants filed an appeal against the order p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....gat Ram Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.E., Chandigarh. 3. On behalf of the Revenue the learned Jt. C.D.R. Shri K.K. Bhatia contended that from the orders passed by the lower authorities it is evident that the appellants had claimed reassessment of the imported goods under Heading 3402.19 read with Notification No. 136/86 (as amended). He added that the imported goods not being "Surface Active Agent" they were not classifiable under Heading 3402.19. He pleaded for rejection of the appeal on the grounds that the appellants' claim for classification of the goods under Heading 3403.99 before the Collector (Appeals) and again before the Tribunal was barred by limitation. 4. We have examined the records of the case and considered the submissions made on ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... having been made before the original authority, it could not be raised at the appeal stage. In this regard we find that in the case of Collector of Customs v. Photogravures (India) Pvt. Ltd. reported in 1987 (29) E.L.T. 647 the Tribunal has held that classification of goods under a different heading of the tariff is purely a question of law and can be raised at any stage. Paragraph 6 of the said decision is reproduced below: "6. We have heard both the sides. There is no dispute on the facts of the case and the goods imported by the respondents and we further observe that no further evidence on facts would be required. In order to appreciate the arguments of the appellant which is now sought to be raised, we decide to allow this plea bei....