9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (9) TMI 160X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 90 invoking the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on the ground of suppression of manufacture and clearance for captive consumption of the above mentioned product. A penalty of Rs. 1 lakh has also been imposed by the impugned order. 2. We have heard Shri J.R. Cama, learned Advocate who mainly contends that the demand is barred by limitation in view of the fact that there is a series of correspondence between the appellants and the Department regarding the manufacture of Softlinn and, therefore, the manufacture of Softlinn was well within the knowledge of the Department and Shri R.S. Sangia, learned DR who submits that suppression arises due to non-filing of classification list for the product and due to not fully desc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quirement to file a classification list in respect thereof (the appellants filed classification list and price list for the sanitary napkins during the period covered by the old Tariff and thereafter). In their further letter dated 19-5-1986, they informed the Department that they were not filing a classification list for Softlinn as the same was consumed captively in the manufacture of sanitary protection product, and in the same letter they stated that their Materials Manager had a meeting with the Assistant Collector in which he confirmed that no classification list is required to be filed and Softlinn can be used in the Bhandup Plant of the appellants without payment of duty. There was no reply from the Department to this letter. It is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bona fide belief that the non-woven cover material Softlinn was not marketable as it conformed to the special requirement of the manufacture of sanitary napkins by the appellants, and would be of no use to any other manufacturer of sanitary napkins. Our opinion is buttressed by the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE v. Malleable Iron and Steel Castings Co. (P) Ltd. reported in 1998 (100) E.L.T. 8 (S.C.) wherein the Apex Court upheld the Tribunal s finding that suppression of facts cannot be alleged when the Department was all along aware of the nature of the products manufactured inasmuch as the assessees had written to the Superintendent of Central Excise for clarification about the classification of the goods and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
