9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (10) TMI 273X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, for the Appellant. Shri Deepak Kumar, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)]. - The applicants manufactured a product described as "Moyzen liquid" and cleared at Nil rate of duty during the period 1994-98 and also not the same goods manufactured from job workers situated in same division. The classification claimed for this product was under sub-heading 3303.00 as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at during the period April 1993 to June, 1996, due to deliberate misrepresentation and by adaptation of wrong classification, duty had been evaded by the applicants. After hearing the applicants, the Commissioner confirmed the duty amounting to Rs. 20,46,176.38. He also imposed penalty of Rs. 4 lakhs. He confiscated the assessees land, building etc. but permitted redemption on payment of fine and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... skin and not as toilet waters and perfumes. 5. Shri Patil argued on point of limitation. It is his claim that the same product as being made by their job worker was under scrutiny for classification by the Department in 1996. The show cause notice refers to the same product, as was being made by the job worker on behalf of the present applicants. Both the units are in the same division. It i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1995 (77) E.L.T. T41 in which Range Officers are required to conduct such verifications as were earlier being done for scrutinising and approving the classification list. Therefore, it would appear that the burden cast upon the department to verify either classification list or declaration would continue in spite of the amendment. We have also seen the case laws cited by the ld. Counsel which stat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
