9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (3) TMI 269X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ification list indicating the product manufactured by them as Mill Board and claimed them accordingly. In April, 1979, the appellant filed a classification list, describing the goods manufactured by them as paper commonly known as Kraft Paper reads as : All sorts of paper commonly known as Kraft paper including paper and paper board of the type known as Kraft Liner or corrugating medium, of substance equal to or exceeding 65 gms. per square meter in each case, kraft liner paper ranging from 80 to 280 gms containing more than 50% by weight of pulp made from waste paper. This classification list was approved. The appellant also filed a price list on 13-4-1979 describing his product as Kraft Liner Paper. Consequent on the Budget changes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upon. The evidence in favour of appellant was also did not brush aside. 4. The Advocates further argued that there was an allegation in the show cause notice that the company had illicitly removed the goods weighing nearly 200 MT on the ground that these clearances could not be correlated with the excise records. Officers of the company have sat with the Supdt. to sort out this position. The Collector had not considered the same pleas putforth. He took us through Collector s orders at pages 48 and 49 in this regard. The witnesses and the (sic.) Panchanama at the factory who had certified the shortage of 8705.00 kg had gone back and this was not considered by the Collector. He further argued that the show cause notice was barred by limitat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at their company was registered under DGTD Licence only for the manufacturing of Paper Board not of Kraft paper. The goods could not be Kraft paper unless they were made out of chemical pulp and there was no evidence to show that they were used. He also cited the Supreme Court s decision in the case of Kanungo Co. v. Collector, Calcutta - AIR 1972 SC 2136. He further argued that paper weighing below 225 gms could not considered to be Board. In so far as the goods manufactured by the appellant was below 225 gms and in this circumstances we considered Kraft paper as raw-material but not chemical pulp. As regards, the correlation, he said that the documents relied upon by the appellant were unsigned. Investigation shows that sometimes the go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... statements. Further, the exemption Noti fication was available not to Kraft Paper as technically known but as paper commonly known as kraft paper. In other words the Kraft Paper as it is known to the persons who deal in it. To .... the DR s contention in this regard would be to dismiss the retractions and also assume that those other persons who might not have retracted their statement would have withstood the cross-examination. 8. The reliance by the Advocates upon the Supreme Court s judgment in AIR 1977 SC 1627 in State of Kerala v. KT. Shahdully is apposite. 9. We are also of the view that appreciation of the evidence with regard to correlation of goods in clandestine removal has not been properly done. With regard to entries in An ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
