1998 (10) TMI 126

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ndents. [Order per : P.C. Jain, Member (T)]. -  Briefly stated the facts of the case are as follows :- 2. The appellant herein imported a part described as 'regulating sensor'. They cleared the same on payment of duty. Later on they filed claim for excess duty paid by them. They claimed the benefit of Notification No. 172/89-Cus. in their refund application claiming that the goo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ellants herein did not succeed. However in addition to the pleas taken by the appellants before the original authority, the appellants made an alternative plea before the lower appellate authority stating that the said part would fall under Tariff sub-heading 8448.20, being part of Texturing machine falling under Tariff Heading 84.44. This plea of the appellants has not been considered by the lowe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....founded. The lower authority has dismissed this plea for alternative classification and consequently the benefit of the said notification under Sl. No. 35 of the table by stating that change of classification of the item is neither appropriate nor desirable. We are unable to understand the said finding of the lower appellate authority. Question of classification is a question of law is a fairly we....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he appellants on the ground of unjust enrichment, we are of the view that the finding made by the lower authority is not correct inasmuch as it is admitted to the Revenue Authorities that the part in question has been used by the appellants in their own machines and not further sold to the customer. Therefore, relying on Bombay High Court judgment in the case of Solar Pesticides reported in 1992 (....