9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (9) TMI 201X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... per : P.C. Jain, Member (T)]. Briefly the facts of the case [are] as follows :- 1.1 The appellants are manufacturers of Solenoid valves and other products. These products were classified under Tariff Item 68 till 28-2-1986 and thereafter under Tariff Heading 8481.80. The appellants are duly registered as SSI factory and had been availing the benefit of relevant notification as applicable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6 and 213/86. The appellants have contended that they were not aware of Notification 213/86 and therefore, did not file a revised classification list on the basis of the Notification 213/86 and they continued to pay duty on the basis of the earlier approved classification list on the basis of Notification 175/86 during the concerned period 25-3-1986 to 31-3-1986. 1.2 The appellants filed their R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the ground that the appellants deliberately did not file the classification list at a higher rate in terms of Notification No. 202/86 read with Notification 213/86 dated [25-3-1986] and therefore, the larger period of five years for demand of duty was invokable. It was the duty of the assessee to observe the provisions of relevant notification under which the assessee intended to avail. 2. As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment of facts. Department was also aware about the issue of the said notification and suitable directions could be issued to the appellants in that respect. Learned advocate has, therefore, submitted that it is merely a case at best of oversight and no wilfulness can be read into the omission of the appellants. 3. Learned JDR, on the other hand, reiterates the findings of the adjudicating author ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssment could be made after due observance of the procedure on R.T. 12 itself. Accordingly, we hold that the appellants cannot be laid open to the charge of wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts or with an intent to evade payment of duty, as set out in proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Act. Demand of duty is, therefore, time-barred without going into the question of merits of assessment and w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
