9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (2) TMI 366X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. - After hearing Shri S.N. Sinha Mohapatra, ld. adv. for the appellant and Shri T.K. Kar, ld. SDR for the Revenue we find that the appeal can be disposed of on the point of limitation itself. 2. The appellants were issued a show cause notice on 22-3-99 raising demand of duty against the appellant for the period 16-3-95 to 25-2-97 on the ground that the m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... them under chapter 87 was not proper. The appellants contention is that in spite of accepting that the appellants had filed the declarations under rule 173B the Commissioner has invoked the longer period on the ground that there was mis-declaration in the classification of the product. Shri S.N. Sinha Mohapatra submits that the above reasoning has been held to be unjustifiable in a number of cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in question had been received from the department. As such misdeclaration or suppression of facts cannot be sustained in law and no demand can be raised for the extended period. The plain reading of Rule 173B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 indicate that every assessee was required to submit a declaration with the department relating there in full declaration of goods manufactured/produced by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eclaration has led to suppression of facts does not weigh favourably with us. The appellants have declared classification of the product according to their own understanding. If the Revenue felt that the classification claimed by the assessee was not proper, they were within their powers to amend the same after following the principles of natural justice. It is not the Revenue s, case that the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
