ORDER
P.G. Chacko, Member (J)
1. In this appeal, the dispute relates to classification of “Duro Box Enclosures” manufactured and removed from the assessee’s factory during June to December 1938. The assessee (appellant) classified the item under Sub Heading 8538.00. The Department wanted it to be classified under Sub Heading 3923.90. The lower authorities demanded differential duty for the above period by classifying the goods under Sub Heading 3923.90. Hence the present appeal.
2. After hearing both sides and considering their submissions, we find that the classification dispute already stands settled in favour of the Revenue by the decision of the Tribunal in Garware Plastics and Polyester Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai , wherein plastic covers for Video Cassettes were classified under Heading 39.22 of the CETA Schedule and the assessee’s claim for classifying it as part of Video Cassette was rejected. In the instant case, “Duro Box Enclosures” were cleared as such from the assessee’s factory and the same were rightly classified as such under Heading 39.23 of the CETA Schedule. The appellant’s claim to have the Boxes classified as parts of electrical fittings (heading 85.38) is untenable.
2. In the result, the impugned order is sustained and this appeal is dismissed.
(Order dictated and pronounced in open Court)