1998 (8) TMI 322

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r (J)]. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of liment during the period 1981-82, 1982-83 1983-84. The appellants filed their declaration under Notification 111/78. In the declaration filed for the later two years i.e. 1982-83 1983-84, liment was declared as one of the product being manufactured by them. However, inf the very first declaration filed for the year 1981-82, liment .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t was suppressed by the appellants from the Department. Accordingly, the demand of duty of Rs. 64,298.08 was confirmed and penalty of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed. 2. Arguing on the appeal, Shri P.K. Das, ld. Advocate draws our attention to the show-cause notice and submits that apart from the invoking proviso to Section 11A(1), there is no allegation in the show cause notice as regards the suppress .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... h period inasmuch as the said product was not mentioned in the declaration filed by the appellants. He submits that the Collector has taken a justifiable view inasmuch as the demands for the subsequent year, here the proper declaration was filed by the appellants, has also been dropped by the Commissioner. Accordingly, he prays for upholding the impugned order. 4. We have considered the submissi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X