1999 (6) TMI 79

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....S. Kang, Member (J)]. - When the case was called, none appeared on behalf of the respondents. Shri R.K. Handu, Proxy Counsel on behalf of Shri Puneet Arora, Advocate prayed for adjournment on the ground that the concerned Counsel is to go to Chandigarh. Shri H.K. Jain, learned SDR appearing on behalf of the Revenue submits that the issue is covered by the earlier decision of the Tribunal. In the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....epartment. In this case the issue involved is classification of rubber blankets. In the impugned order the Collector (Appeals) after relying upon his earlier Order-in-Appeal in the case of Kasturi & Sons Ltd. held the impugned goods as classifiable under Heading 40.08 of Central Excise Tariff. We find that the Revenue filed the appeal against the Order-in-Appeal relied upon by the Collector in the....