ORDER
S.L. Peeran, Member (J)
1. This appeal arises from Order-in-Appeal dated 30th September, 1997 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), remanding the matter for de novo consideration.
2. The Appellants had imported brackets made of metal. They claimed the same to be wall mountings used for placing T.V., Music System, Computer System, etc., and it acts as a space saving device. There is no dispute with regard to classification for the purpose of Customs duty under the Customs Tariff Act. The dispute pertains to ITC classification, the lower authority has classified it under Heading 830250.00 which reads as “Hat-racks, Hat-pegs, Brackets and similar fixtures” while the importer had claimed classification under Heading 830241.03 as “Builder’s hardware”. Learned Commissioner did not agree with both the classification and remanded it suggesting classification under 940320.09 of ITC HSN, depending on whether they are made of steel or any other metal.
3. Learned Counsel submits that on remand the lower authorities did not follow the directions but have upheld the earlier classification adopted under 830250.00. He submitted that he has filed an appeal before the Commissioner on the said order and it is awaiting hearing. He strongly argues his case to say that the item deserves to be classified as builder’s hardware and not as the classification adopted by the department under Heading 8302.50 as Hatracks, Hat-pegs, brackets and similar fixtures. He takes support of Customs HSN Notes to say that the Brackets are found in both headings and this item in question is more akin to Builder’s hardware. Therefore, their claim has to be considered as Builder’s hardware in terms of their technical literature and not as Hat-racks, Hat-pegs, Brackets and similar fixtures.
4. Learned DR submits that the matter since has already come to the stage of appeal before the Commissioner, this matter could be sent back to the Commissioner to decide the claim of the party along with the lower authority’s original claim as on remand the Commissioner’s suggested heading has not been accepted by the department.
5. On a careful consideration of the submissions, we notice that the correct course to be adopted in the present case is to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to deal with the appeal of the importer arising from the remanded matter. The Commissioner shall take-up the plea of the Appellants and examine the grounds raised by them in the light of the technical literature and the HSN Notes. He shall take both the appeals and decide expeditiously, preferably within 3 months from the receipt of the order.
6. Thus the appeal is allowed by remand to Commissioner (Appeals).
