9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (1) TMI 611X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stava, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)]. - By the impugned order, the Commissioner of Central Excise has confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 55,14,713/- on paper based decorative laminated sheets manufactured by the appellants herein (classified under CET sub-heading 4823.90), denying the benefit of Notification 135/89-C.E., dated 12-5-89 to the product in disput ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssees that all facts were in the knowledge of the Department is unsustainable in view of the fact that they did not declare the names of melamine resin and formaldehyde resin being manufactured within their factory premises and also that it results in a resin-forming solution, in order to conclude that they had concealed material facts wilfully and fraudulently with intention to evade payment of d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... final product, claiming exemption under Notification 1/93. A fresh classification list was filed by them on 1-4-93 since SSI exemption under Notification 1/93 was applicable for each financial year. On 30-4-93, a show cause notice was issued to them proposing to deny exemption under the Notification claimed in the classification list filed w.e.f. 1-3-93, to which the appellants filed their reply i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion list filed w.e.f. 1-3-93 by denying the benefit of exemption under the above mentioned Notification. As for the classification list filed w.e.f. 1-4-93, it was approved by extending the benefit of the Notification, after verification from the Assistant Collector, Chandigarh that benefit under the Notification was extended to other manufacturers of similar products, and the appellants availed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntion to wrongly avail the benefit of exemption from duty resulting in evasion of payment of duty. 4. In the light of the above discussions, we hold that the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is not attracted in the present case. 5. In the result, we set aside the demand as time barred and also set aside the penalty and allow the appeal on the ground of limitation. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
