2009 (1) TMI 658

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Shri S.M. Vaidya, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. After examining the records and hearing both sides, we find that in the impugned order the ld. Commissioner demanded duty of over Rs. 49 lakhs from the appellants for the period March, 2003 to March, 2007 in respect of Paper Board manufactured and cleared by them during the said period without payment of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ge Industries Commission (KVIC) before the proper officer of Central Excise to the effect that such paper or paper board was commercially recognized as hand-made paper or hand-made paper board, as the case may be. The ld. Counsel for the appellants have shown us a certificate issued by KVIC for an old period (1995-96), which clearly states that the certificate is valid for one year only. Such a ce .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f duty. He has submitted that the appellants were periodically filing RT-12 returns and ER-1 returns. Prima facie, these returns did not purport to disclose the process of manufacture of paper, which was crucial for claiming classification under Sub-Heading 4802.20 and the consequential benefit of nil rate of duty. The finding of suppression of facts by the appellants, recorded in the impugned o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X