2009 (4) TMI 590

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ellant. Shri J.A. Khan, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : S.S. Kang, Vice-President]. Heard both sides. The assessee as well as the Revenue filed these two appeals against the same impugned order. 2. The Revenue demanded duty in respect of the product treating the same as sodium bi-sulphate classifiable under Tariff Heading 2833.90 of the Central Excise Tariff. The adjudicating .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... result. The demand is for the period September, 1999 to December, 2000. Therefore, no suppression with intent to evade payment of duty can be alleged against the assessee. Hence, the demand is also liable to be set aside being time-barred. It is also submitted that the provisions of remission of duty are not applicable on the facts of the present case. 4. The contention of the Revenue is that t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X