9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1751X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erred in holding that there was suppression of fact by the appellant. In this case, the show cause notice is issued for the impugned period on 17.1.2018 - the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly held that in this case the description indicated in the ER-1 filed by the respondent is clear enough and makes it very clear that the said product is a pipe which is manufactured by using the HDPE raw mate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iscussing the merits of the case. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods falling under Chapter Heading No. 73 & 85 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. It was noticed during the audit that the respondent is manufacturing and clearing excisable goods namely, PLB HDPE duct, by wrongly classifying that under Cent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i.e. as tubes of polyethylene. Accordingly, a show cause notice demanding the differential duty along with interest was confirmed and the penalty by the lower adjudicating authority after following the due process of law. 3. Ld. AR, on behalf of Revenue submitted that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly held that the demand is barred by limitation without discussing the merits of the case. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion regarding classification adopted by the respondent and, therefore, this is not the case of suppression of fact and, hence, the demand is time barred. Therefore, he argued that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly set aside the impugned order on the ground of limitation. 5. Heard the parties and perused the case record. 6. After going through the impugned order, we find that the ld. Com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 22) ELT 820 (SC); (iii) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. CCE, Mumbai-II - 2010 (262) ELT 751 (Tri.-Mumbai); (iv) Synpol Products Ltd. Vs. CCE & ST, Ahmedabad - 2016 (335) ELT 697 (Tri.-Ahmd.). 7. After perusal of the aforesaid case law and the record of the appeal, we are of the considered view that there is no error committed by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order. Accordingl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
