1998 (12) TMI 565

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . Shri A.M. Tilak, DR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)]. A duty demand of Rs. 6,15,678/- has been confirmed upon the appellants who are manufacturers of newsprint paper and other varieties of paper on the ground that the Quantity of rejects of newsprint in the financial year 1989-90 exceeded 5% of the total production of newsprint in that financial yea .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... newsprint rejects may fall under the same sub heading namely CET sub-heading 4801.10 is not sufficient to hold that even rejects are covered under Notification 60/88, in view of the clear description of goods covered under that Notification as newsprint . Further, the claim of the appellants that in respect of the quantity of 1,95,251 kgs (quantity in excess of 5% rejection), the Registrar of New .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... mitation under the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Hence, the demand raised in the notice, dated 27-8-90 for the period 1989-90 is partly time barred. In the result, while holding that the appellants are not eligible to the benefit of exemption under Notification 261/88 and No. 60/88, we hold that the demand is required to be confined to a period of six months from the date .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X