ORDER
C. Satapathy, Member (T)
1. None appeared for the appellants. Heard Shri R.B. Pardeshi, learned JDR for the Department. The written submissions filed by the appellants have also been taken into account of consideration as also the case records.
2. The dispute in this case relates to classification of a product “P-100” manufactured by the appellants. The appellants claimed classification under heading 3823.00 whereas the Department has classified the product under heading 3824.90. The appellants contend that copy of Dy. Chief Chemist’s chemical examination report has not been made available to them to enable them to contest the said report. They, further, claim that the Dy. Chief Chemist has described the product as Dimerised and Trimerised Fatty Alcohols, whereas the lower authorities have considered the product as Fatty Acids. It is their case that the Dy. Chief Chemist should not have suggested classification of the product under heading 3824.90, which has been adopted by the Dy. Commissioner and Commissioner (Appeals), when the Dy. Chief Chemist himself has suggested various other things to be verified before classifying the product.
3. We find merit in the submissions made by the appellants. Since the classification of the product depends on the chemical examination, a copy of the report should have been supplied to the appellants. The submissions made by the appellants that the product is a compound of fatty alcohols and not fatty acids, should also have been taken into consideration. As such, we set aside the impugned orders passed by the lower authorities and remand the matter to the original authority for fresh decision. The original authority should get the product re-tested by the Chief Chemist and furnish a copy of the result of Chemical Examination to the appellants and also grant them a reasonable opportunity of hearing before the matter is decided. The appeals are allowed by way of remand.
(Pronounced in Court on 13-7-2005.)