2006 (5) TMI 331

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Respondent. [Order per : C.N.B. Nair, Member (T)].-  Heard both the sides and perused record. The demand is for the period May, 1999 to July, 2001. The same was raised through show cause notice dated 12-7-2002. 2. The appellants contended before the lower authorities that the demand is beyond the period of limitation permissible inasmuch as there was no suppression or mis-statement of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... eclared the impugned product as under -           "Cotton Yarn (other than sewing thread) containing 85% or more by weight of Cotton           - Cotton yarn, not containing Synthetic Staple fibre           Core Spun-i.e. Cotton/Lycra Yarn 93/7     .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... also find that nowhere the Appellants had declared that the impugned Lycra Yarn consists of elastic/stretching characteristics or intended use of the same or mention of the fact that it can be used for weaving of fabrics unlike the gimped yarn, which they are contending after classifying the same under Heading No. 56.06 by the revenue." 3. Thus, the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) on t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ound fault with for not stating those particulars. It is well settled that failure to disclose particulars which are not legally required to be disclosed does not constitute suppression of facts. If any more particulars were relevant or required for determining classification, Revenue could have asked the appellants for details before assessing the products. In the present case, it is also seen th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X