2026 (8) TMI 851

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....llowed the appeal of the Respondent-Assessee. 2. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the Respondent M/s Asti Electronics P. Ltd. are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods i.e. electronic items assembly (PCB assembly, ECU assembly, Panel assembly, CTRL & sensor assembly obstruction) and have classified the same under Tariff Heading 85423900 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Respondent removed the said goods on payment of duty in respect of the goods cleared for export. After the export of the goods, the Respondent filed refund claim of Rs.2,55,28,675/- under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The Range Officers were satisfied with the factum of the export of the goods on payment of duty and found it....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Departmental Representative, appearing on behalf of the Appellant-Revenue, submits that the impugned Order-in- Appeal is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts & the law. He further submits that in the absence of show cause notice challenging the classification, the Commissioner (Appeals) ought not to have decided the issue of classification but should have remanded the case to the Original Authority for deciding the issue of classification after calling upon the Respondent to explain the show cause notice. He further submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) has ignored Chapter Note 8 of Chapter 85 and has not discussed as to how the impugned goods are not classable elsewhere in Chapter 84 ....