9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (9) TMI 845X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er, a penalty of Rs. 2.00 lakh has also been imposed under the provisions of Rule 173Q(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Apart from this personal penalty a sum of Rs. 5.00 lakh has been imposed upon the second appellant, Shri Jasbir Singh, Director of the appellant company. 2. The demand of duty has been raised for the period from 2-11-1991 to 15-3-1995, vide show cause notice dated 5-3-1997, on the alleged ground that the appellants products were properly classifiable under Chapter heading 89.31, whereas they have been clearing the same under Heading 73.15 attracting nil rate of duty. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of parts suitable for use solely or principally with the lifting and handling machinery. Originally, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 11A of the Act. 5. We find that the Commissioner in his impugned Order has invoked the longer period of limitation by observing that the appellants have indulged into deliberate misstatement as regards the description of their product. He has observed that the appellants have not given the specifications and drawings of the goods manufactured and cleared by them, and have intentionally given the impression to the Revenue that the goods in question were items of general use. It was on account of the above non-declaration by the appellants that the classification lists were got approved from the proper officer. As such, he has justified the invocation of the longer period of limitation. 6. On a perusal of the classification lists, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he classification lists approved by not disclosing the specifications and drawings of the goods manufactured by them, is without any basis inasmuch as such drawings etc. are not required to be submitted to the Revenue along with the classification lists. If the officers approving the lists found it necessary to look into the said drawings and specifications, he was at liberty to call for the same and then grant approval. In these circumstances, we are convinced that the demand raised in the year, 1997 for the period 1991-95, is barred by limitation of six months, as provided under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. We hold accordingly, and allow the appeal filed by M/s. Sandhu Tehnocrat Pvt. Ltd. 7. As the appeal filed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
