Collector of Central Excise Vs. thermo Plast

1. the respondents herein filed a classification list for their product "polyurethene insulation in rigid form" claiming classification under get sub-heading 3926.10 attracting 15% bed + 5% sed under notification 54/88 dated 1-3-1988 as amended, and also claiming modvat credit of duty paid on the inputs. the classification list was approved by the assistant collector on 2-7-1990, on the basis that the product in question was not to be considered as excisable goods, as held by the tribunal in the case of milton plastics v. collector of central excise (final order no. 655/90-c, dated 27-6-1990), and there being no duty on the final product, modvat credit on inputs could not be allowed.accordingly, the assistant collector filed an application in form ea2 in july 1991 to the collector of central excise (appeals) who decided the appeal holding that since the goods are not excisable and not liable to duty, the assessees could not claim modvat credit of duty paid on inputs.2. we have heard shri h.k. jain, learned sdr and shri r. sudhinder, learned advocate.3. we agree with the learned counsel that since collector (appeals) by the impugned order had entirely allowed the prayer of the revenue, there could exist no grievance with his order, in order to maintain an appeal before the tribunal against his order. we, therefore, reject the appeal as not maintainable.