2012 (8) TMI 346

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t, 1975 - period 1.4.1993 to 31.3.1998 - invocation of extended period of limitation - Held that:- As the issue involved is more than of classification of shikakai powder, which was held against the appellants in 2009 in case of Mayil Mark Nilayam Vs. CCE, Chennai (2009 (3) TMI 170 - CESTAT, CHENNAI), therefore, demand for the extended period of limitation is not sustainable but demand for the nor .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... les thereunder. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellants are manufacturers of shikakai powder and not discharging duty on the premise that it is a vegetable product and more over classifiable under Chapter 14 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1975. Revenue is of the view that the product is classifiable under Chapter 33 of the CETA particularly under sub-heading 3305.90. Therefore, sho .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... re than of classification of shikakai powder, which was held against the appellants in 2009, therefore, demand for the extended period of limitation is not sustainable but demand for the normal period of limitation is sustainable. Therefore, we hold that the demands for normal period of limitation are payable by the appellants. In the case of Mayil Mark Nilayam (supra), it was also observed 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