9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (10) TMI 126X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant had manufactured and cleared certain medicaments attracting classification under Central Excise Tariff Item 3301 liable to duty at 20% ad valorem. 2. Arguing the case of the appellant, Shri R. Parthasarathy, learned Counsel states that he is mainly stressing the time limit aspect. Clearances of the goods in question had taken place during the period 1-4-1987 to 31-3-1990 whereas the show cause notice has been issued on 30-5-1991. They had filed classification list for the subject goods claiming classification thereof under sub-heading 3005.90. The Assistant Collector amended the declared classification to 3003.30 and changed the declared rate of duty of 15% to nil rate. Guided by this decision of the Assistant Collector on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssions of both sides. We have perused the record. As come out during the arguments, the appellants had filed the classification list declaring the description of the goods as `Cineole British Pharma Copia and Eucalyptus Oil BPC . They had also reproduced the Tariff Heading 3005 reading Pharmaceuticals not elsewhere specified. This was amended by the Departmental officer to refer to 30.03 and the relevant Tariff description for the main Heading and the Tariff sub-heading 3003.30 for the two items in question. More significantly, the rate of duty declared by them as 15% was amended to read as nil. This act on the part of the officer was a conscious one exercised in terms of Rule 173B which enjoined upon him to carry out necessary investigati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llants had brought it to the notice of the adjudicating authority that they had been filing NIL RT 12 for the disputed items and this return was assessed and returned by the officers. It was the contention of the learned Counsel that in spite of the clear claim, there is no finding by the adjudicating authority and he had not adverted to the submission that there was no suppression of facts on their part. We agree with the plea raised that the facts of the present case do not point to the existence of the factors which would justify invocation of the longer period of limitation. In this view of the matter, we hold that the demand confirmed by the Additional Collector was totally beyond the period of limitation of six months and hence set as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
