9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (7) TMI 432X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng and Printing Paper falling under sub-heading 4802.99 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act. They filed two classification lists during 14-8-1993 to 28-7-1994 classifying their product under sub-heading No. 4802.99 claiming nil rate of duty under Notification No. 48/91. The Collector, Central Excise, under the impugned order dated 15-3-1995, confirmed the demand of excise duty amounting to Rs. 52,68,282.70 paise and imposed a penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs, holding that they had removed newsprint during the period 14-8-1993 to 28-7-1994 which was not declared by them; that they were declared as mills producing newsprint by Department of Industrial Development vide order dated 3-8-1993; that it showed that every mill could not prod ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the same as newsprint; that there was no change whatsoever in the nature of the product which continued to be writing and printing paper; that as there was no change in the paper, they continued to classify the paper as Writing and Printing paper in the classification list; that the goods were described in the gate passes as 'Amrit News Print Reels' and these gate passes were filed with the Department alongwith RT 12 Returns. The learned Advocate further submitted that due to shortage of newsprint, the Central Government, under the provisions of a totally different statute, decided to treat their product as newsprint and the fact that their product was used as newsprint by various customers cannot affect classification under the law perta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e from the Registrar of Newspaper which was duly produced; that in addition they had produced confirmatory letters from their purchasers. He finally submitted that there was no suppression or misstatement as they were under the bona fide belief that since there was no change in the paper, there was no question of maintaining a separate RG-1 and for filing a separate classification list; that they had mentioned the fact of newsprint in the gate passes; that there could be no mala fide on their part in not classifying the goods under heading 48.01 as they were entitled to full exemption under Notification No. 60/88; that they have been classifying the product under Heading 48.01 since 1-3-1994 and availing the exemption under Notification No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tification No. 60/88, the matter may please be remanded for examining the certificates. 6. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. It is not disputed by the Revenue that the Appellants, before they were declared as mill producing newsprint, were manufacturing printing and writing paper which was eligible for the exemption from payment of duty under Notification No. 48/91. The Appellants have also claimed that even after 14-8-1993, the same product has been sold by them to customers who have used the same as writing and printing paper and not as newsprint. We find that no evidence has been brought on record to show that the Appellants had changed the process of manufacture of the paper after declaration was issued by the Gove ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
