9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (6) TMI 95X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ocate, submitted that the entire demand of duty is barred by limitation since the show cause notice dated 9-12-97 has been issued well beyond the period of 6 months from the relevant date; that the period for which demand has been confirmed is from 8-1-93 to 31-3-94; that the basis on which extended period of limitation has been invoked is that they were knowing fully well that plastic was being used as an input in the manufacture of decorative laminated sheets, suppressed this material fact from the department and thus, the true and correct nature of the impugned product was never brought to the notice of the department by them; that this material fact was suppressed by them with the intention to avail the exemption under Notification No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at no stage any product known as plastic comes into existence. He, further, submitted that thereafter the department being satisfied by the information and justification forwarded by them, allowed the clearances as claimed in the classification list; that thus the clearances were with the full knowledge, approval and consent of the department, and there was no suppression or concealment or mis-representation of relevant fact; that RT-12 Return filed by them had been assessed by the Department; that the show cause notice issued after a period of 3 years is time barred. Reliance has been placed on the decision in the case of CCE v. Muzafarnagar Steel - 1989 (44) E.L.T. 552, wherein it has been held by the Tribunal that "when the classificati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed laminated sheets; that this is a clear and independent admission on their part that they had never used plastic which is not correct deposition; that accordingly they cannot claim that there was no suppression on their part. 4. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. It has not been disputed by the Revenue that before 8-1-93 the appellants were classifying decorative laminated sheets under sub-heading No. 4823.90 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act and discharging their duty liability at the tariff rate. It is under their letter dated 8-1-93 they claimed the benefit of notification by filing the revised classification list. We observe that they have even mentioned the reasons for revising the classification l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibunal has observed in the case of Muzafarnagar Steel, that "act of approval was not merely a passive act or concurrence but involves active decision making and the Asstt. Collector was required to fully satisfy himself about the particulars of goods being manufactured and the process of manufacture wherever necessary and the relevant facts and then only determine the classification and pass the appropriate orders." In view of the fact that the classification list has been revised and the reasons of such revision has been advanced by the appellants and the appropriate officer has approved the classification list, extended period of limitation under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act cannot be invoked. The entire demand pertaining to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
