1998(07)LCX0052

IN THE CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI

S/Shri P.C. Jain, Member (T) and S.S. Kang, Member (J)

GRASIM INDUS. LTD.

Versus

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, BOMBAY

Final Order Nos. 599-600/98-B2, dated 29-7-1998 in Appeal Nos. C/78 & 79/97-B2

CASE CITED

Grasim Industries Ltd. v. Collector — 1996(12)LCX0109 Eq 1997 (092) ELT 0607 (Tribunal) — Followed                                [Para 1]

Advocated By :  Ms. Shruti, Advocate, for the Appellant.

Shri A.K. Agarwal, SDR, for the Respondent.

[Order per : P.C. Jain, Member (T)]. - These two appeals originated out of refund claims filed by the appellants herein raising the question of Classification of goods with description `Sintered Filter Media’ to be used in Viscose filtration machine as a component part of the later. Ms. Shruti, ld. Advocate submitted that this issues stands decided in the appellant’s favour in their own case by the Tribunal reported in 1996(12)LCX0109 Eq 1997 (092) ELT 0607 (Tribunal). It has been held therein that the classification of the said goods would be under sub-heading 8421.99 of the CET (sic) 1975 has contented by the appellants and would be eligible for benefits of Notification No. 172/84-Cus. (as amended) vide entry 18. Ld. Advocate, therefore, submits that these appeals be allowed with consequential relief to the appellants.

2. Ld. SDR A.K. Agarwal submitted that the impugned order has been passed by the Appellate Authority without going into merits of the classification; it has held that the Asstt. Collector has no jurisdiction to entertain refund claims in the absence of an appeal against the classification made on the Bill of Entry. He, therefore, submits that the matters be remanded to the Lower Appellate Authority for deciding the case on merits in the light of the judgment of the Tribunal referred to by the ld. Advocate.

3. We have carefully considered the facts and circumstances and the pleas advanced from both sides. The impugned order is not at all sustainable because the finding of the said authority that there cannot be a refund claim on assessment in the Bill of Entry unless classification made therein is separately challenged is not correct. There is no separate order for classification in customs matters. Classification is a part of the assessment order on the B/E. Therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable on the ground it has been passed.

4. As regards the prayer of the ld. SDR that the matters be remanded, we are not able to accept the same in view of the clear judgment of the Tribunal in the appellant’s own case in respect of this very product. Consequently we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeals with consequential relief to the appellants.

_______

Equivalent 1998 (104) ELT 95 (Tribunal)