2001 (8) TMI 662

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Appellant. Shri H.S. Joshi, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : Gowri Shankar, Member (T)]. - This order seeks to dispose of two appeals, one by the manufacturer, and one by the Commissioner, against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). 2. Amitron Ltd. filed a classification list on 19-11-1990 in which it claimed inter alia classification of copper tubes as parts of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2, demanding the difference between the duty that was paid and that which was payable in accordance with the order of the Assistant Collector. The Assistant Collector adjudicated this notice and, by his order of 29-10-1992 confirmed the demand for duty. The manufacturer appealed this order, claiming classification under heading 8485.90. The Commissioner (Appeals) ruled that, since the classificati....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ion of the Counsel for the assessee that the classification of the product under heading 7411.10 was finalised only by the order dated 13-2-1992 of the Collector (Appeal) and that the assessments were provisional till then. Therefore, the notice was ab initio valid. 6. We are unable to accept the contention. As we have narrated above, the classification of the goods was finalised by the or....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....se. The Court said, any duty paid by a manufacturer prior to approval of the classification list would be provisional, and subject to the result of the final approval by the officer concerned. The officer concerned is the Assistant Collector; and the duty paid after he approved the classification list is no longer provisional. 7. The further contention of the Counsel for the appellant that....