9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (7) TMI 182X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... without approval of classification list and price list. The admitted facts of the case are that the respondents filed a classification list (No. 163 of 1982) as being effective from 1-4-1982 in respect of printed cartons claiming exemption under Notification No. 80/80, dated 19-6-1980, on 13th October, 1982. In other words, the classification list was filed for retrospective effect going back to more than six months. Now, on verification of this classification list, together with the statement of gross sales for the period from 1-4-1981 to 31-3-1983, as furnished by the respondents, the department observed that the value of the clearances of the products falling under Central Excise Tariff Item 17(4) and Central Excise Tariff Item 68, whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for classification under Central Excise Tariff Item 68. In view of this change, it is urged that respondents should have submitted fresh classification list effective from 1-4-1982, which they failed to do, thereby contravening the provisions of Rule 173B. It is added that respondents also contravened the provisions of Rules 173C, 173F and 173G inasmuch as they cleared the goods without filing proper price list, without determining the duty leviable on such goods and without following the proper procedure laid down. It is submitted before us that had the respondents filed the classification list in time i.e. on 1-4-1982, the Assistant Collector would have properly appreciated the facts of the case and would have denied to them the benefit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... publicity materials manufactured by the respondents from April 1981 to March 1982, together with full information as regards the gross sales. Respondents requested the department to go through these particulars and to advise them in the matter. The learned JDR fairly concedes that in view of the Central Excise licence issued to the respondents and the letter of 16th March, 1982, the allegation of suppression or mis-statement of facts is difficult to maintain. 7. Obviously, there was a procedural failure on the part of the respondents in their not submitting the classification list in time. However, in view of their application for Central Excise licence, which was duly granted by the department as well as the letter of 16th March, 1982 g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
