9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (3) TMI 227X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : Justice U.L. Bhat, President]. The period in question is from 1-8-1983 to 30-9-1984. Appellant was manufacturing Polyester Filament Yarn and in such manufacture, producing and using Mono Ethylene Glycol and Di-Methyl Tetraphalate. Methanol was a bye-product and surplus Glycol was a waste product. At the relevant time the residuary Tariff Item 68 specifically excluded all sorts of alcohol i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d of limitation was available. This was also the view taken by the lower authorities. Reliance is placed on the classification lists filed with the Department by the appellant during the relevant period. The classification list proforma No. I requires particulars of all excisable goods (including wholly exempted) produced, manufactured, warehoused to be furnished in a tabular form. The second tabu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant is that it was thought that this was only a repetition of the first tabular form and, therefore, was not filled up. The answer of the Departmental Representative is that it was the duty of the appellant to have used correct proforma and use of a wrong proforma cannot relieve the appellant of the charge of suppression of facts. This argument could have been taken seriously if there is nothin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re of Polyester chips are not covered under any of the Tariff Items of Central Excise Tariff. In the light of this clarification given by the Asstt. Collector, who was the jurisdictional officer, the charge of wilful suppression of facts cannot stand against the appellant. Hence, we are of opinion that the longer period of limitation was not available and that being so, the show cause notice wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
