9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (12) TMI 184X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laminated jute bags manufactured and cleared by them. On receipt of reply and on adjudication the Assistant Collector under his order, dated 10-4-1982 confirmed the demand in respect of the period 24-11-1977 to 5-6-1979 only (Rs. 2,38,904.60 paise), since the demand for the earlier period was barred even under the extended period provided under Section 11 A of the Central Excises and Salt Act. The appeal against the same was dismissed by the Collector (Appeals) under his order, dated 16-9-1983. This appeal is against the said order. 2. We have heard Shri M. Chandrasekharan, Advocate for the appellants and Smt. Saxena for the Department. 3. The case for the Department is that during the relevant period the laminated jute bags manufactured ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ification till 5-6-1979 would be under item 22A CET. It is, therefore, his submission that the matter will have to be re-examined and that taking into consideration the change in the tariff entry introduced in 1972 and 1977 we have to now hold, following the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, that the goods were properly classifiable during the relevant period under item 22A CET and exempt under Notification 53/65. On the other hand, Smt. Saxena submits that the classification uphold in the earlier decisions will have to be followed, pointing out that the amendments in 1972 and 1977 were also taken into consideration, in upholding classification under item 68 CET, in the decision in the case of Dalmia Laminators. 5. We are, however ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... till the notice was issued the appellants as well as the Department were both of the view the laminated jute bags were classifiable under item 22A CET only and it is for this reason that in the show cause notice no allegation was made that the appellants were guilty of any of the circumstances which entitle the Department to invoke the larger period of limitation under Section 11A. 6. In this connection Shri Chandrasekharan drew our attention to certain correspondence that had passed between the appellants and the Department. Under letter dated 6-12-1974 addressed to the Assistant Collector the appellants had enclosed copies of site plan of the Laminating Plant. Under letter dated 17-7-1975 the Assistant Collector has conveyed the approval ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that prevailed in Calcutta during the relevant period, the Department as well as the assessees being bona fide under the information that laminated jute bags fell under item 22A-CET (and therefore, exempt) and not under item 68-CET. 7. Smt. Saxena relies upon the averment in the show cause notice that "no particulars of production, clearances and value of the laminated jute bags manufactured by you have been furnished to this office" and submits that this would amount to an allegation of suppression and hence the larger period was available to the Department. We are unable to accept this submission. The correspondence that had passed between the appellants and the Department clearly establishes that the Department was made fully aware by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
