1998 (9) TMI 366

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n No. 53/88 as amended would not be admissible to them on the ground that they had not shown any proof that the duty paid Plastic Sheets and Plastic Profiles were made out of duty paid inputs falling under Heading Nos. 39.01 to 39.15. 2. When the matter was called none was present for the appellants. Since this is an appeal filed in 1993, we decided to proceed to dispose of the case on merits after hearing the Departmental Representative and after perusing the record. 3. Shri H.K. Jain, ld. SDR explained the facts of the case and stated that the present appellants were manufacturers inter alia of "File Covers of Plastics for binding computer data made of Polypropylene sheets" falling under sub-heading 3926.90 of the Central ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sion for them to give the said information. They also have pleaded that the Collector (Appeals) had wrongly rejected the appellants' claim that the Tribunal decision in the case of Mechanical Packing Industries v. C.C.E. [1992 (59) E.L.T. 421 (Tribunal)] will not apply to the facts of the present case. 5. Ld. DR drew attention to the Order-in-Appeal and submitted that the issue related to the classification of computer file coveres manufactured by the appellants. The appellants had classified the goods under Tariff sub-heading 3926.90 and had claimed the benefit of Notification No. 53/88 as amended. The Department's case is that the benefit of the said notification could not be granted to the appellants because one of the conditions....