2016 (1) TMI 336

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e product and claimed the benefit of the exemption notification. In our considered view, the claim of exemption notification in their Declaration was approved by the Department, would not amount a suppression of fact with intent to evade payment of duty. We find that on the identical situation in the same product, the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Cipla Ltd., set-aside the demand on the ground of limitation - demand of duty alongwith interest and penalties on the appellant company and other appellants are set-aside on the ground as barred by limitation - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No. : E/1345-1347/2007 - Order No. A/11389-11391/2015 - Dated:- 7-10-2015 - MR. P.K. DAS, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND Mr. P.M, SALEEM, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ioner of Central Excise and Customs, Surat-II 2002 (148) E.L.T. 1043 (Tri.-Mumbai). 3. On the other hand, The Learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the Adjudicating Authority. He submits that the appellant misclassified the goods in their classification list. So, the extended period of limitation would be invoked. 4. On perusal of the records, we find that the dispute relates to products namely; Diclofenac Potassium Diclofenac Diethyl Ammonium and Diclofenac Free Acid classifiable under Chapter Heading No. 2942.00 of CETA 1985. The Tribunal by Order dated 01.09.2005 remanded the matter with the observations, as under:- 3. Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that even though the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... terial facts from the Department by mis-classify in the product of Diclofenac Potassium Diclofenac Diethyl Ammonium and Diclofenac Free Acid in the classification limit. We find that the Central Excise Officers approved the Declaration dated 01.10.1995 filed under Rule 173 B of the erstwhile Rules. There is no dispute that the appellant declared the product and claimed the benefit of the exemption notification. In our considered view, the claim of exemption notification in their Declaration was approved by the Department, would not amount a suppression of fact with intent to evade payment of duty. We find that on the identical situation in the same product, the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Cipla Ltd., set-aside the demand on the ground of l .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X