2019 (10) TMI 1214

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... esh Rawal, Advocate Present for the Respondent: Shri Tarun Kumar, AR ORDER PER: ASHOK JINDAL The appellants are in appeal against the impugned order wherein the differential duty has been demanded by invoking extended period of limitation. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of miscellaneous edible preparations such as ready to Eat Food Items. On th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sed on appellants. On appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals), the order of the adjudication was upheld. Against the said order, the appellants are before us. 3. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that without going into the merits of the case, they are having a good case on limitation as the show cause notice was issued by invoking the extended period of limitation. It is his submission that the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t aside and the penalties are also not sustainable against the appellant. 4. On the other hand, Ld.AR opposed the contention of the Ld. Counsel and submits that on the basis of intelligence gathered, it came to the notice that the appellant is mis-classifying their product, therefore, the demand is rightly confirmed against them by invoking the extended period of limitation. 5. Heard the parties .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X