9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 275X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able and what is the rate of duty applicable to them. In our view, on this very ground only the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) merits to be set aside. Besides this, we also find that during the period of dispute, the appellant were filing classification declarations in which these wastes had been declared and the exemption under Notification No. 27/95-C.E. had been claimed. No objection has been raised by the department to the benefit of the exemption Notification No. 27/95-C.E. claimed by the appellant. In view of these circumstances, the appellant cannot be accused of having suppressed the relevant information from the department with intent to evade the payment of duty, and hence the show cause notice, dated 22-6-20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cated by the Joint Commissioner vide order-in-original, dated 6-9-2000 by which he confirmed the above mentioned duty demands totalling ₹ 3,96,499/- along with interest thereon under Section 11AB and besides this, also imposed penalty of equal amount on the appellant under Section 11AC and another penalty of ₹ 25,000/- on the appellant under Rule 173Q(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. In course of proceedings before the Joint Commissioner, it was pleaded by the appellant that the demand is time-barred and extended period under proviso to Section 11A(1) is not available inasmuch as during the period of dispute, the appellant had filed classification declarations in which the above items had been declared mentioning that the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom the department and hence, longer limitation period of 5 years under proviso to Section 11A(1) would not be available to the department for recovery of allegedly short-paid duty and accordingly, the entire duty demand is time-barred and that when no duty is recoverable from them, there is no question of imposition of penalty on them under Section 173Q. He, therefore, pleaded that the impugned order is not sustainable. 5. Shri Pramod Kumar, Joint CDR defended the impugned order by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). 6. We have considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. 7. The duty demand in this case is on weaving hard waste, chindi waste and selvedge waste. Though the show cause n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
