9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (10) TMI 140X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g assessed to duty under T.I. 17(4) read with Notification No. 67/82 dated 28-2-1982. After the issue of Notification No. 144/82 dated 22-4-1982 they discontinued the payment of Central Excise duty and maintenance of Central Excise records even though they were asked by the Superintendent to file a revised classification. On test of the sample of the appellants product, the examiner opined that the material of the Printed Cartons manufactured by the appellants was made of paper board made of chemical pulp backed by PVC film on one side backed by PVC film. The appellants were served with a show cause notice dated 29-9-1983 demanding duty amounting to Rs. 35,049-30 on the ground that the goods cleared during the period 1-3-1982 to 31-8-198 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot eligible for the exemption under Notification No. 144/82 dated 22-4-1982 and extended period of 5 years under the proviso to Section 11A was attracted on account of the deliberate attempt on the part of the appellants to evade payment of duty by suppressing the facts. 2. On behalf of the appellants, the learned Consultant Shri Gopal Prasad appeared before us. He stated that the Assistant Collector was correct in holding that the demand was time-barred. He added that appellants had been paying duty on Printed Cartons since March, 1982 but after the issue of Notification No. 144/82 dated 22-4-1982 they discontinued the payment of duty. He added that on being asked to file a fresh classification list the appellants had submitted a revised ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... neither filed a revised classification list despite being asked to do so by the Superintendent nor did they respond to any of the letter of the Range Officer. He stated that under these circumstances the demand could not be held as time-barred. He further contended that there was no force at all in the appellants contention that under Notification No. 144/82 Printed Cartons of Mill board having backing of PVC film were eligible for exemption. He argued that other ingredients upto one third the weight were permissible in the materials constituting the mill board and the relevant provision in the notification was not applicable to any other backing material used for making mill board cartons. On these grounds he pleaded for the rejection of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the duty of excise leviable thereon, subject to the condition specified in the corresponding entry in Column (3) of the said Table. THE TABLE S. No. Description of boxes/cartons Condition (1) (2) (3) 1. Mill board boxes and mill board cartons If made wholly out of mill board. 2. Straw board boxes and straw board cartons. If made wholly out of straw board. 3. Corrugated board boxes and corrugated board cartons. If made wholly out of kraft paper or out of paper and paper board of the type known as kraft liner or corrugati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt that the words Other material in Proviso (i) referred to materials which went into the making of the board as ingredients and not those which were pasted to the board or used as laminating material. This reasoning finds confirmation from Proviso (ii) in which it was laid down that the board in question was not to have any paper pasted on either surface. Since in the appellants case the cartons in question were made out of a board which was backed by the PVC film, it could not be deemed as having been made wholly out of mill board. In our view the decision in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. M/s Jayant Paper Box Factory relied upon by the appellants is distinguishable on facts since in that case while considering the question ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of facts since for confirmation of the demand the appellants had not furnished the information sought by the Assistant Collector in his letters dated 20-8-1982, 27-1-1983, 15-2-1983 and 2-6-1983 and they had also failed to file the revised classification list claiming exemption under Notification No. 144/82. As against this the appellants case is that they had furnished all the information which was sought by department and the revised classification list claiming exemption under Notification No. 144/82 was returned to them for making some minor correction. They have, however, not been able to establish that the classification list was re-submitted after carrying out the corrections. 8. We are inclined to agree with the Collector (App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
