1989 (8) TMI 241

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2. Appellant imported two consignments of polyester metalised film and filed bills of entry for clearance of the goods claiming assessment of the goods for the purpose of C.V. duty @ 8% of CET. According to them, the goods were covered under Item 68 of CET, while the department assesssed them under Tariff Item 15A. So, the appellant filed refund claims on both the consignments which were rejected by the Assistant Collector and, in turn, by the Collector (Appeals). This has given rise to the present appeal. 3. We heard Shri K.V. Kunhikrishnan, ld. Consultant for the appellant and Shri M.S. Arora, ld. J.D.R. for the department. 4. The appellant has also moved a Miscellaneous Application No. 247/88-C whereby the appella....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....is notification and will be entitled to avail of this notification. He referred us to invoices wherein the goods are described as polyester metalised film Gold 25 micron and he also referred us to bills of entry wherein also the goods are described as polyester metalised film. 7. In the Order-in-Original, the Assistant Collector of Customs had rejected the refund claim on the ground that the goods were polyester resins extruded in form of a film and polyester resins being poly-condensation product, would be appropriately covered under Item 15A(1) and film made out of it would squarely be treated as article of rectangular shape. Collector, in his Order-in-Appeal, held that as he had already decided indentical appeals in which he had ....