1999 (10) TMI 160

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Aurangabad alleging that the goods were correctly classifiable under sub-heading 3920.37 and the appellant is liable to pay differential duty of over Rs. 24 lacs during the period 1989-90 to 1991-92 (upto February, 1992) on account of the wrong classification (and payment of duty at lower rate). It was alleged in the Notice that the assessee had misdeclared the classification and had suppressed the fact regarding pro-dominance of the ingredients which were material for the classification of the goods, thereby attracting the Proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for the purposes of recovering the duty short levied. Classification list from time to time indicating the correct description of the goods and this classification h .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... product, the charge of suppression of facts and mis-declaration of the product was correctly made. He held as under :- "The act of furnishing incorrect description of the final product, further followed by nondisclosure of the inputs having pro-dominance is held as an intentional act for evasion of duty and the decision in the Padmini Product [1989 (43) E.L.T. 195 (S.C.)] cannot come to the rescue of the assessee." The appellants have reitereated their aforesaid contention regarding time bar of the demand in the present appeal also. They have submitted that they had filed classification lists in 1987 & 88 giving the correct description of the goods in the classification list. The goods were described as "laminated non-wovens" in the class .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s were declared correctly as laminated non-wovens in the classification lists. If the Central Excise authorities required any more details about ingredients or any other details, it was for them to ask for and obtain those particulars before approving the classification list, as Central Excise classification of products is a responsibility of Central Excise officers. In these facts and circumstances, the allegation of misdeclaration or suppression of facts is not sustainable. Therefore, no demand could be raised for the extended period. The Collector's finding to the contrary is clearly incorrect. The appeal, therefore, succeeds on the ground of time bar. It is allowed with consequential relief to the appellant in accordance with law.
C .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X