9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (9) TMI 473X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Respondent. [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. Vide his impugned order Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta has confirmed demand of duty of Rs. 1,08,736.00 against the appellant on the ground that their final product was properly classifiable under heading 9403.00 whereas the appellant has claimed the classification under the tariff heading 7308.90. He has also imposed person ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0. Shri Bagaria s contention is that the show cause notice was issued in the year 1998 and as such the law prevalent at the time of issuance of the show cause notice would be applicable. The above position has been settled at rest by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Atma Steels Pvt. Ltd., 1984 (17) E.L.T. 331 and has since been followed by the Tribunal in a number of decisions. Simi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tc. For identical reasons he challenges the imposition of personal penalty against the appellant. 3. We have heard Shri A.K. Mondal, ld. SDR for the Revenue. 4. The Commissioner in his impugned order has held that in view of the above factual position, the allegation of suppression of facts, misstatement, fraud, collusion etc. with intent to evade payment of central excise duty in classifying ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bench in the case of Atma Steels has clearly laid down in para 101(d) that :- 101(d) Recourse can be had to the provisions as prevailing at the time of initiation of proceedings, and the period available would be the one as permissible under the provisions existing at the time of issuance of show cause notice, in spite of the fact that the short-levy or non-levy refers, to the period when diffe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
