1995 (8) TMI 195

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 : R. Jayaraman, Member (T)]. -  Though this day, only stay application was listed for hearing, after hearing both sides, since the matter calls for a remand, we have taken up the appeal itself for disposal. 2. The appeal is against the Order-in-Appeal No. CS-44/Bom. III/95, dated 27-4-1995. 3. The facts of the case are that the appellants filed a classification list on....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Hence the department alleged that they had mis-classified the goods under 3209.90 and sought to recover the differential duty by issuing two show cause notices. Both the demands are reportedly within time. In the order passed by the lower authority, they do not seem to have gone into the merits of the classification, whether these products are classifiable under 3208.30 or 3209.90. They have gon....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... list. 4. After hearing both sides, we find thus both the orders of the lower authorities have not considered the issue on merits. The appellants admit that they have classified under 3208 in the first classification list and this was their mistake and their claim for classification under 3209 in the subsequent classification list has been correctly done. In the circumstances, their claim fo....