ORDER
D.C. Mandal, Member (T)
1. In this appeal the appellants have prayed for classification of the Block Board under Heading 4410.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 w.e.f. 1-3-1986 and consequential refund of duty on such block board in respect of clearances made from the factory of the appellants during the period from 1-3-1986 to 24-7-1989.
2. At the beginning of the hearing the learned Departmental Representative has raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the appeal is not maintainable as the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Calcutta, in the impugned order, classified the block board of the appellants under Heading 4410.90 and hence the appellants are not aggrieved by the said decision. On going through the impugned order, we observe that the Collector (Appeals) already decided the classification to be under Tariff Heading 4410.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. This is the classification which the appellants wanted. The appellant, not, therefore, aggrieved with the impugned order. During the hearing before us the learned Advocate has argued that the Department has not granted consequential refund w.e.f. 1-3-1986 as the Block Board was classifiable under Tariff Heading 4410.90 from that date. He has, therefore, prayed that the Tribunal may issue a direction to the Central Excise authorities for the consequential refund from 1-3-1986. On going through the Order-in-Original Nos. DIV/TSK/19/CL/VAL/DENOVO/89 and DIV/TSK/20/CL/ VAL/89, dated 24-11-1989 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Tinsukia, we observe that the proceedings relating to this appeal were initiated on the classification list No. 16/87-88 C/TSK III effective from 1-3-1988. In the present proceedings we cannot therefore give any direction for a period prior to 1-3-1988 as the same is not covered by the present proceedings.
3. Consequently, we dismiss the appeal. However we direct the Department to implement the impugned order and pay the consequential refund to the appellants, if any, as the grievance is made by the appellants before us that the authorities concerned are not implementing the impugned order.