2000 (12) TMI 737

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....A as polyester tow or staple fibre and also confirmed the duty demands on them as indicated in the order itself besides imposing penalty. 2. The facts giving rise to appeal may briefly be stated as under :- 3. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of polyester staple fibre falling under sub-heading 5501/20 of the CETA. During the manufacture of that product, the waste arose at various stages. They filed classification list under Rule 173-B for the main product under sub-heading 5501.20 and for waste under sub-heading 5503.19 of CETA. The department, however, drew samples twice of the crimped uncut waste and sent the same for test to the Chemical Examiner. On receipt of the Report of the Chemical Examiner dated 20-3-1....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... is liable to be set aside on the simple ground that he had failed to comply with the directions given by the Tribunal vide order dated 21-1-1994 while remanding the matter for fresh decision. According to the Counsel, the Tribunal directed the Commissioner (adjudicating authority) to supply the copy of the Test Report of the Chemical Examiner and other material to the appellants before using the same against them for classifying their goods crimped uncut waste which they cleared as a waste, while the Revenue claimed it to be not waste but polyester tow or staple fibre. But the Commissioner failed to supply the necessary material to them and had passed, the impugned order. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the matte....