9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (10) TMI 263X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R, for the Respondent. [Order per : J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)]. The Commissioner in the impugned order confirmed the duty amounting to Rs. 23,11,686.19 and also imposed penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs on the appellants. The appellants have filed an appeal against this order and also an application for waiver of pre-deposit of the duty confirmed and the penalty imposed as well as stay of recovery ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essed by the assessee with deliberate intention to evade payment of duty. The period covered under the show cause notice was from 1-4-1988 to 31-3-1990. Before the Commissioner, the assessee cited the Tribunal judgment in the case of Shri Ganganagar Bottling Co. [1999 (107) E.L.T. 645 (Tri.)] which related to another assessee manufacturing similar product using the same brand name owned by M/s. Pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... han Rs. 1.5 crore and thus they are eligible for Notification No. 175/86. Under the circumstances, the Notification No. 223/97 is not applicable. 6. The classification list was provisionally approved by the jurisdictional Asstt. Commissioner on 31-1-1988. The final confirmation was made vide order No. 46/89 accepting the assessee's claim for the benefit of the notification. In this order, the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rned jurisdictional officer was not only aware of the claim made by the assessee but had verified the claim and accepted the claim. In that situation, the allegation made in the show cause notice dated 31-12-1992 about the suppression of facts with intention to evade duty would attract the plea of limitation. We also find that the cited order of the Tribunal although in dealing with another assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
