9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (8) TMI 635X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1-1992 to 1-3-1994 which are the subject matters of Appeal No. E/R-280/96. In the said classification lists, the appellants claimed the correct classification of Jute Webbings under sub-heading 5306.29 on the basis of earlier approved classification lists. The Department, after issuing the show cause notice to the appellants, confirmed the classification of Jute Webbings under sub-heading 5806.90 as narrow woven fabrics. The order passed by the Assistant Commissioner was confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence the present appeal. 2. Shri S.K. Bagaria, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants submits that admittedly Jute Webbings are woven fabrics of narrow width. The same are manufactured out of jute yarn warp and weft p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to 30-4-1992 was not clearly barred by limitation and the duty could not be demanded even in six months period. He has also agitated against the imposition of penalty and direction for payment of interest under Section 11AB. 4. Shri R.K. Roy, learned JDR for the Revenue reiterates the reasonings of the authorities below and submits that as Jute Webbings are admittedly narrow woven fabrics, the same could be covered by Heading No. 58.06. He places reliance on the HSN Explanatory Notes. 5. After giving our careful consideration to the issue before us, we find that an identical question of classification of Jute Webbings was considered by us in the case of M/s. Ludlow Jute Mills v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta-II vide Ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... We find that the period involved is w.e.f. 1-3-1988 to 30-4-1992. We agree with the submission of the learned Advocate, Shri Bagaria that the clearances were being effected in terms of the approved classification lists and as such, it cannot be said that there was any suppression on the part of the appellants. Accordingly, the demand if at all, could be raised only for a period of six months from the relevant date. As regards the contention that the duty could not even be raised for the period of six months, we find that the Tribunal in the case of Assotex Engineering Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad reported in 2000 (119) E.L.T. 742 (T) = 2000 (39) RLT 254, has held that in case of clearance made as per approv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
