9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (11) TMI 198X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dent. [Order per : Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)]. - The appellants herein manufacture inter alia packing and wrapping paper (undisputedly this is indeed known as Kraft paper). They filed a classification list effective from 1-4-1983 and claimed exemption in terms of Notification No. 46/83 dated 1-3-1983 which covers all papers other than certain excluded varieties such as paper board, ce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri A.V. Naik submits that Notification 46/83 covers all types of paper, barring certain categories and since the packing and wrapping paper manufactured by them is not one of the excluded categories, the appellants are entitled to general exemption in terms of this notification and it cannot be denied to them only for the reason that Notification 47/83 provides different rate of duty specifical ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n lies in the fact that the assessee did not describe the goods as kraft paper but only reproduced the description of the goods contained in Notification 46/83, in order to wrongly avail of the lower rate of duty under Notification No. 46/83 and therefore, the extended period has rightly been applied by the department in this case. 4. We have heard the rival submissions. We agree with the le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, the duty demand is sustainable on the merits of the matter. However, the appellants have made out a strong case in support of their contention that the demand is barred by limitation. The description of the goods in the classification list is according to the Notification No. 46/83. But the matter does not end here. Samples of the disputed product were drawn and tested, as seen from page 15 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment while approving the classification list to satisfy itself as to whether the notification is available and only on such satisfaction, the benefit is to be extended. In this view of the matter, we agree with the appellants that there has been no suppression on their part so as to warrant the applicability of extended period of limitation. The penalty is also unjustified in the absence of propos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
