TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1999 (12) TMI 664
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... [Order per : S.S. Kang, Member (J)]. - The appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal dated 14-11-91 whereby the refund claim of Rs. 2,03,856.51 filed by the appellants was rejected. 2. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that in the dispute relating to the classification of Switch fuses of various kinds was settled by the Assistant Collector ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ole of the duty demand. The Hon'ble High Court directed the appellants to deposit one third of the duty demand and in compliance to this order, the appellant deposited Rs. 2,03,856.51 as pre-deposit for hearing of the appeal. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants. Thereafter, appellants filed an appeal before the Tribunal. He submits that on 17-8-89....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ctor. He submits that in the letter written by Supdt. dated 17-8-89 it was specifically mentioned that their product is classifiable under Heading 8537.00. On withdrawal of the appeal before the CEGAT, the demand for duty classifying the product under Heading 8536.90 is liable to be set aside and the appellants are entitled for the refund. He, therefore, prays that the appeal be allowed. 3. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e. The appeal filed by the appellants for classifying their product was dismissed by the Collector of Central Excise upholding the order passed by the adjudicating authority for classifying their product under heading 8536.90. Thereafter, the appellants filed the appeal before the CEGAT which was withdrawn by the appellants. In this situation the order passed by the adjudicating authority classify....