9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (2) TMI 165X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner in the impugned order. The ld. Commissioner had confirmed demand of duty amounting to Rs. 22,77,900/- stating that the noticee had admitted that there has been a demand of duty as indicated in the show cause notice during the period August, 1994 to October, 1995. The ld. Commissioner also held that extended period of limitation has rightly been invoked in the SCN. 2.The facts of the case a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Section 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 only basic Customs Duty leviable under Section 12 of the Customs Act was payable. They therefore submitted that since only duty chargeable under Section 12 of the Customs Act was payable. Therefore, the demand of duty amounting to Rs. 22,77,900/- was not legal and justifiable. The ld. Commissioner after hearing the submissions of the appellant held as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e above. 4.Insofar as the demand of Rs. 22,77,900/- is concerned, ld. Counsel submits that duty equivalent to the duty payable under Section 12 of the Customs Act should have been demanded. He submits that this demand is not the demand for duty under Section 12 but is the demand under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act. He submits that in terms of the provisions of Section 3 of the Central Exci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ial duty has rightly been demanded as held by the ld. Commissioner. He reiterates the findings of the ld. Commissioner. 6.We have heard the rival submissions. Insofar as demand of differential duty on account of reclassification is concerned, we note that the demand is not sustainable in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Cotspun Ltd. reported in 1999 (113) E.L.T. 353. 7. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
