9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (9) TMI 63X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding 94.06, not under SH 7308.90, is a finding of fact which does not call for any interference – larger period is invokable, as there was suppression of fact – demand is justified - 4355/02 with 4381, 4358 and 4499 of 2002 - - - Dated:- 23-9-2008 - Ashok Bhan and V.S. Sirpurkar, JJ. Ms. Amita Gupta, Shri Rupesh Kumar and Ms. Neelam Sharma, Advocates, for the Appellant. S/Shri K. Radha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled in that order itself. They classified these products as "steel structures" under Chapter Heading 73.08. 3. A show cause notice dated 5th May, 1990 by invoking the extended period of limitation under Section 11A of the Act was issued to the appellant alleging that they are evading excise duty on pre-fabricated shelters by mis-declaring their product as "steel structures" falling under Sub- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... estigation, admitted that the orders received by the company were for supply of complete pre-fabricated buildings and supply was made accordingly. 4. Collector of Central Excise, Delhi vide his order dated 31-3-1992 confirmed the demand against the appellant and penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- was imposed upon it. Appellant filed appeal before the Customs, Excise Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore the Tribunal. Tribunal by its impugned common order has confirmed the demand duty but reduced the penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- imposed on the company to Rs. 2,00,000/- on the ground that before remand penalty imposed was Rs. 2,00,000/-. However, penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- imposed on all the partners was maintained. Tribunal in its impugned order has recorded a finding that the appellant receive ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
