9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 993X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned the claim under tariff heading no. 24039910 even prior to the disputed period, the bonafide is clearly established. It can be conveniently understood that the appellant’s product is the ‘Zarda Scented Tobacco’. With this disclosure of the information, no suppression of fact can be alleged against the appellant. The demand is clearly time barred - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. E/166/2009-DB - Order No. A/11213 / 2018 - Dated:- 19-6-2018 - Mr. Ramesh Nair, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) And Mr. Raju, Hon ble Member (Technical) For the Appellant : Shri D. K. Trivedi, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri S. K. Shukla, Supdt. AR ORDER Per : Mr. Ramesh Nair The brief facts of the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the intention of the Government was very clear from the beginning that whether it is the Zarda Scented Tobacco or Chewing Tobacco both were not notified under Notification No. 13/2002-CE (N.T.) and the valuation was on the basis of MRP. Due to introduction of 8 digit tariff heading in the Central Excise Tariff for the purpose of classification, this mistake has occurred as the different tariff entry in respect of Zarda Scented Tobacco was left to be included in the Notification No. 2/2006-CE (N.T.) dated 01.03.2006. He further submits that even when 8 digit tariff entry was provided in 2005, the chewing tobacco and zarda scented tobacco were covered under old entry i.e. 2404.41 under Sr. No. 24A of Notification No. 13/2002-CE (N.T.), t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. He submits that the show cause notice was issued is clearly time barred as the same has invoked the extended period i.e. March 2006 to 10.07.2006 for which show cause notice was issued on 09.06.2008 i.e. beyond one year. He further submits that the appellant had a bonafide belief that even though their product is zarda scented tobacco, but it is manufactured, cleared and sold as chewing tobacco only right from beginning even when the product was covered under MRP based valuation Notification No. 13/2002-CE (N.T.) dated 01.03.2002 during the period 28.02.2005 to 28.02.2006. Therefore, there is no malafide intention of the appellant. There is no suppression of fact for the reason that the appellant in their application for registration cle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... we are of the view that the appeal can be disposed off only on the ground of the time bar. As regards the time bar, we find that the case made out against the appellant was only when the Notification No. 2/2006-CE (N.T.) dated 01.03.2006 was issued. However, the appellant have been manufacturing the same goods right from 2005 onwards and they had declared the product under tariff heading number 24039910 as chewing tobacco and under the same heading and description they have been declaring through out, even after the issuance of Notification No. 2/2006-CE (N.T.). Therefore, it clearly shows that since the appellant have maintained the claim under tariff heading no. 24039910 even prior to the disputed period, the bonafide is clearly establish ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
