1997 (6) TMI 169

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ondents. [Order per : T.P. Nambiar, Member (J)]. -  This is an appeal filed by the appellants against the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) wherein he rejected the claim of refund of the appellants. The original authority rejected the refund claim of the appellants as unsubstantiated. Before the Assistant Collector the appellants sought classification of the goods under sub-he....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....appellants sought classification under 8443.90 the Commissioner (Appeals) should have discussed this aspect and give a finding as to why this claim made by the appellants cannot be accepted. He pointed out that without discussing this aspect of the question he straight away held that these goods are classifiable under 8479.89 without putting the appellants to notice about the same. In any case he ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....bmissions of both the sides. It is very clear from Para 10 of the impugned order that there was a claim made by the appellants with respect to the classification under 8443.90. This aspect was not discussed in the impugned order. The learned Collector has not given a speaking order in this regard as to why the claim of the appellants for classification under 8443.90 is not tenable. On the contrary....