1998 (4) TMI 251

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... RESENTED BY : Shri Satnam Singh, SDR, for the Appellant. Shri Naveen Mullick, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : Lajja Ram, Member (T)]. - In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the matter relates to the dutiability of the rubberised cotton fabrics known as friction cloth. It was alleged in the show cause notice dated 9-2-1989 that the friction cloth was classifiable under T.I. No. 19(1) .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Advocate for the respondents M/s. K.K. Rubber Co. (P) Ltd. 3. Shri Naveen Mullick, Advocate submitted that the demand had been made invoking the extended period of limitation while there was no allegation of suppression in the show cause notice. He referred to the cross-objections filed by the respondents. He also submitted that the matter was covered by Punjab and Haryana High Court in the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... se Rules, 1944, the friction cloth was not liable to central excise duty. 6. In the light of the factual averments made in the adjudication order and the law as enunciated by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana, we do not find any infirmity in the view taken by the learned Addl. Collector Central Excise in the present proceedings. We do not find any merit in this appeal filed by the R .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X