9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (8) TMI 218X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ow cause notice has been issued on 2-8-96 i.e. by invoking the longer period of limitation against the appellants. 2. The appellants' grievance, apart from the proper classification of their product being under 4811.30, is that the demand having been raised beyond the period of six months is barred by limitation, inasmuch as there was no wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts attributable to the appellants. On the contrary, they have strongly agitated that the Classification Lists filed during the relevant period were properly approved under 4811.30. In their Classification Lists, they have clearly described the product as "Printed Poly-Coated Paper". Not only that, in all the statutory records, even the names printed on the paper, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ustrial undertakings who were availing the Modvat credits of Duties paid by the appellants and were re-imbursing the same to the appellants at actuals. Drawing our attention to the findings of the adjudicating authority, he submitted that the only ground for invoking the longer period of limitation is that the appellants did not furnish the proper description in their Classification Lists. He also submitted that there is nothing in the impugned Order of the Commissioner to the effect that what was the alleged mis-declaration on the part of the appellants and how the appellants should have described the same in their various statutory records. The appellants have made reliance upon a number of Supreme Court's decisions as also on the various ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r period of limitation of five years. We fail to understand as to what the mis-statement is, when the Commissioner observed in his impugned Order that the assessee did not furnish any proper description in their Classification Lists in respect of the alleged product. If the 'Printed Poly-Coated Paper' is not to be described as such, we fail to understand and appreciate as to what other description of the product could be there. The Commissioner has also observed that the appellants got different Classification Lists approved by the Department, wherein the said product was not correctly declared and as such, in view of that fact, it cannot be said that proper Classification List was submitted by the assessee in respect of the subject product ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
