G. Sankaran, Sr. Vice-President

1. The common issue involved in these two appeals is whether "Lauryl alcohol" imported by the appellants, was classifiable under heading No. 15.08/13 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, as claimed by the appellants or under Heading No. 29.01/45(1) of the Schedule as claimed by the Revenue. Both the lower authorities found against the appellants. The claims of the appellants on the basis of the classification claimed by them for refund of the excess customs duty recovered were also dismissed by the lower authorities.

2. We have heard Shri S.R. Tamhane, Consultant, for the appellants and Shri C.V. Durghayya, D.R., for the respondent.

3. Shri Tahrnane, pointed out that the issue in these appeals stood concluded in favour of the appellants by the Tribunal's decision in the case of Collector of Customs, Bombay v. Hico Products Ltd. (the present appellants themselves) reported in MANU/CE/0155/1984 : 1984 (18) E.L.T. 645. This decision has been followed in subsequent decisions of the Tribunal in the case of Roussel Pharmaceuticals (I) Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay (Order No. C. 654/1985, dated 13-9-1985 and Collector of Customs,