ORDER
V.P. Gulati, Vice President
1. The issue in the appeal relates to the classification of the goods which arise during the manufacture of rubberised fabrics and are in the nature of trimmings. The respondents were earlier paying duty under Tariff Heading 5905.90 while the revenue has demanded duty, under Tariff Heading 5905.20. It is after the revenue demanded duty under the latter Tariff Heading that the appellants resisted the demand. Before the lower original authority they took a plea that the goods were not chargeable to duty being not excisable. The learned lower authority held that these are in form of fents, rags and chindies. The learned lower appellate authority on the appeal filed by the respondents has held that the goods being in the nature of trimmings were not excisable and the question of charging any differential duty would not arise. He has also observed that so far as the payment of duty under Chapter Heading 5905.90 is concerned, this matter was not in dispute in appeal.
2. None, for the respondents.
3. The learned JDR, for the department has pleaded that when the classification of the goods under Tariff Heading 5905.90 was not in dispute, the learned lower appellate authority should not have entered the finding that the goods were not excisable being in the nature of trimmings. He has pleaded, in the absence of any dimensions of the goods, he is not able to support the case that individual pieces were in the nature of rags and chindies. He has, however, urged that while demanding duty square meterage of the cloth has been given.
4. We observe that in the absence of any facts as regards the goods being rags and chindies, we are not able to agree with the revenue that the goods could be re-classified under Tariff Heading 5905.20. However, since the assessees were already paying duty under Tariff Heading 5905.90 and this point was not in dispute as stated by the Collector in the appeal before him, the learned lower authority should have stopped by holding mat no further duty is demandable in view of the basis on which they had paid the duty earlier. His finding that the goods are not excisable being in the nature of trimmings is also not based on any findings as to the nature of the goods. We, therefore, hold that this finding of the learned lower authority has to be set aside.
5. Therefore, while we hold that no further duty is demandable, we at the same time are of the view that since the respondents had not disputed the classification under Tariff Heading 5905.90, the same stands.
6. The appeal is, therefore, decided in the above terms.