1996 (6) TMI 254

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... [Order per : G.R. Sharma, Member (T)]. - This appeal is directed against the order of Collector (Appeals). Collector (Appeals) in his order had held that the item imported by the respondents herein was classifiable under heading No. 90.29(2) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The Collector (Appeals) also held that consequential relief shall be admissible to the respondents herein. 2. The....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....use notice which he was not competent to. He submits that classification of the goods against Tariff Item 90.29(1) was neither claimed by the respondents herein nor was it an issue before the Collector (Appeals) and therefore the learned JDR pleaded that the Collector had travelled clearly beyond his jurisdiction. The learned JDR also raised another point that the Collector ordered suo moto refund....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....into consideration the drawings of the product and on the basis of these drawings he came to the conclusion that the imported goods were correctly classifiable under Tariff Item No. 90.29(1). The basic issue before us for determination is whether this finding of the Collector (Appeals) can be sustained in law. We find that in appeal the appellate authority is competent to modify the order passed b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t the appeal stage. 6. On the second issue whether the Collector could grant suo moto refund in excess of the demand of differential duty, we find that the Collector (Appeals) in his order had held that consequential benefit shall be admissible to the respondents herein. If the consequential benefit on account of change in classification happens to be more than the amount of differential d....