2015 (9) TMI 1084

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rtment and the classification list have been approved and RT-12 returns assessed down the years, it is difficult to find any justification for upholding the allegation of misstatement or suppression of facts. Since the show-cause notice was barred by limitation and we do not find any error in the order of the Commissioner on this aspect, there is no need to refer the matter back to the Tribunal .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... meant for plastics. We find from the order dated 02.06.2005 passed by the Tribunal that it has followed its earlier judgment in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta Vs. India Foil Limited reported in 2001 (132) E.L.T. 737 while dismissing the appeal of the Revenue. Mr. Arijit Prasad, learned counsel on behalf of the Revenue, has brought to our notice that the aforesaid judgment .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the composition of the products. That evidence is in the form of a letter dt.21.2.91, obviously in response to an enquiry by the Superintendent in which the relevant details are clearly mentioned. Besides, there was collateral material furnished with the price list/declaration, such as customers purchase orders which set out the specifications of the product. When all this material was made avail .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X