ORDER
Shri S.S. Sekhon
1. These four appeals are taken up for decision by this Common Order as the issue involved is the same.
2. The appeallants have come in appeal against the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) who:
a) vide his OIA No 115/97 after examining the matters, found, a Corrigendum dt 15.3.96 was issued as regards notice dt 31.8.95 and 4.12.95, therefore there is no denial of natural justice as regards the Assistant Commissioner having come to a finding that goods were classified under sub-heading 3925.99 while the classification of the goods has been (SIC) under 3916.00. However, in respect of notice dt 1.3.95, no such opportunity of or by a corrigendum was issued, and as the matter was common i.e. of classification of the goods, no purpose will be served in remanding one of the orders on the grounds of natural justice for fresh examination. Therefore, he decided these three cases on merits, by this common order No 115/97.
b) In Order-in-Appeal No 114/97 he found that the Assistant Collector had held the classification of the item to be under 3917 and the department in the appeal had contended that sine the products did not have internal corss section of round, oval or rectangular, hence in terms of Chapter Note 8 to Chapter 39 these products could not be classified as pipes; they were required tobe classified under Ch. Note 3916.00 He therefore, set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner and confirmed the Classification under 3916.00 in view of Note 8 to Chapter 39 as he found no definition of ‘Profile Shapes’ under Chapter 39.
(c) The Commissioner (Appeals) in Appeal No 115/97, has determined the same classification for the same goods, as in Order-in-Appeal No 114/97 i.e. 3916.00 and upheld the duty demands.
3. We have considered the submissions and the demonstration of the product before us by the learned Advocate.
a) The same appeared tobe a cut end of a plastic pipe, further slit into 2 halves vertically i.e. longitudinally, We are not in a position to determine, from the paper book records before us, as to what are the goods before us i.e. Transable, Cut ends of a Pipe as recorded by the lower authority or the cut ends then vertically split into two pieces. Without having the benefit of the exact nature of the product, determination of the classification is not possible or correct to arrive at. The matter is therefore remanded back to the Original authority to redetermine the nature of the entity and come to a decision after recording the exact specification of the entity under classification dispute. The demands can be determined consequent to the determination of the Classification’s after grant of proper heaing.
(b) Before we part with these appeals, we would like to observe that the Collector (Appeals) should have remanded the matters for fresh determination, especially where no amendments were issued, since we cannot appreciate approval of a classification, without the assessee having been put to a proper notice.
In view of our findings, the Orders are set aside. The peals are allowed as remanded to the original Authority for neve adjudication.