9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (1) TMI 129X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , a Central Govt. Undertaking has filed this appeal against the judgment and order dated 28-12-1999 passed in Appeal No. E/798/95-NB [2001 (137) E.L.T. 1137 (Tribunal)] by the Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) New Delhi (for short 'the Tribunal') confirming the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Meerut whereby he determined the differential duty of Rs. 24,44 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng No. of the schedule is the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986) under which the goods fall. 1. 2. 3. 1. Parts suitable for use solely or principally with the apparatus of heading No. 85.25 to 85.28 (i) ANPRC A8A (ii) ANPRC A9A (iii) ANPRC A10 Heading 85.29 Sub-Heading 8525.00 2. Transmission Apparatus for Radio Telephone/Radio-Telegraphy, Radio Broadcasting or Television ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also arrived at the same conclusion. Hence, this appeal. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the entire approach of the Tribunal is erroneous. Appellant is a Central Government Undertaking and no inference can be drawn that appellant intended to evade duty by misdeclaration of the items produced by it. As there was some mistake, it was corrected as soon as t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sufficient to attract the extended period of limitation." 7. From the law laid down by this Court it is apparent that there is no question of application of extended period of limitation as per the 1st proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Act as it would be difficult to draw any inference that there was an intention on the part of the appellant to evade excise duty. 8. Hence, this appeal is allowed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
