TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 90X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the issue on limitation - appeal allowed by way of remand. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uppression of fact on the part of the appellant. Hence, the demand is not sustainable for the longer period on the ground of time bar. He also submits that since there is no malafide intention penalty against the appellant company as well as personal penalty against the director are not imposable. He placed reliance on the following judgments: Sudio Printal (New Delhi) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of C. Ex. Delhi-I-2004 9172) ELT 402 (Tri. Del) Cadila Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE Vadodara-2003 (152) ELT 262 (SC) Mafatlal Industries Ltd. Vs CCE Ahmedabad-II 2003 (161) ELT 251 (Tri. Mum) S K Enterprises vs CCE Delhi 2004 (175) ELT 686 (Tri. Del) Komal Trading Co. vs CC (Import), Mumbai- 2014 (301) ELT 506 (Tri. Mum) 3. Sh. K.J. Kinari ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ip;……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………."I find that lower authority has rightly discussed the explanatory notes of HSN in the impugned order and concluded that classification of the product under chapter 39 and also arrived at the conclus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|