ORDER
Gowri Shankar, Member (J)
1. Two show cause notices issued to the appellant demanded duty on the ground that the printed plastic film obtained by it as a result of subjecting unprinted plastic film to printing that supplied by the was not entitled to the benefit of Entry No. 30 of the Table to the Notification 14/92. The Assistant Collector confirmed the demand. On appeal from this order, Commissioner (Appeals) noted that the notice has been issued in pursuance of a decision arrived at by the Assistant Collector on the classification of the product, by denying the benefit of the notification; that decision had become final, not having been challenged in appeal. Therefore, the assessee should have paid duty in accordance with the classification. He, therefore, dismissed the appeal.
2. The contention of the counsel for the appellant is that it is not correct to say that the earlier classification had become final. An appeal had been filed before the Collector (Appeals), who had dismissed it on the ground that it did not bear the requisite court fee. On an appeal from that order, the Tribunal by its order of 21.12.1999 remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the matter after affording an opportunity to the appellant to remedy the defect. The counsel for the appellant says that the defect has been remedied and the appeal is now pending before the Commissioner (Appeals).
3. Since the classification arrived at by the Assistant Collector, which led to the issue of this demand are therefore the order impugned before us, is itself pending before the Commissioner (Appeals), we think it appropriate that decision on the demand should follow the disposal of the earlier appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals).
4. Accordingly, we allow this appeal, and set aside the impugned order. The Commissioner (Appeals) shall decide this appeal after deciding the earlier appeal in accordance with law.