1999 (12) TMI 361

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . Parthasarathy, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri K.M. Patwari, JDR, for the Respondents. [Order per : Gowri Shankar, Member (T)]. - The application is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 67.57 lacs and equal amount of penalty. 2. The duty has been demanded, and penalty imposed following the finding of the Commissioner that the three products manufactured by the applicant described as .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... oil has been suppressed from the department. Hence the extended period has been rightly invoked. 4. Prima facie we find that the applicant had a strong case on merits as well as on limitation. Two of the products (Binol 35 and Binol 40) have not been tested at all and there was therefore no basis whatsoever in the notice to question the classification already approved over a long period of t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ement that the assessee had intent to evade duty "by suppressing the facts, wilful mis-statement etc". The judgment of the Supreme Court in Collector v. HMM Ltd. - 1995 (76) E.L.T. 497 holding that the factors justify invoking extended period must be clearly spelt out in the notice would apply prima facie. We therefore waive deposit of the duty and penalty and stay their recovery.
Case laws, D .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X