9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (12) TMI 518X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri T.K. Kar, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. - The short dispute involved in the present relates to the classification of simethicone USP. The appellants have claimed the classification of the said product under Heading 3003.20 whereas the Revenue has classified the same under Heading 39.10. 2. After hearing Shri K.K. Banerjee, ld. Advocate and Shr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Product Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise reported in 1994 (71) E.L.T. 339 (S.C.), he holds against the appellants. 3. As regards the limitation, the Commissioner observed that the said assessee has deliberately misdeclared the impugned product and declared the duty at the rate lower than the applicable rate. They have wilfully suppressed the actual character and use of the said product before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emand without applying his mind and without reading the earlier order of the Tribunal in full, which clearly holds that Hico Product judgment is not applicable. In spite of that, the Commissioner has questioned the earlier order of the Tribunal and has held contrary to the appellants claim. 5. In respect of the limitation also, we find that the period involved in the present appeal is 1-1-95 to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and referring to the same dispute i.e. classification, how it can be said that the Department was not aware of the manufacturing activities of the appellants or the use of product in question thus leading to any suppression and mis-statement on their part. We find no justification in invoking the longer period of limitation against the appellants. We expect the original adjudicating authority to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
