TMI Blog2001 (2) TMI 463X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... demand, claim for interest and imposition of penalty made on the appellant under adjudication order 51/CE/99 dated 30-9-1999 of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh. The issue involved in the proceedings before the Commissioner was whether the appellant had rightly been given the benefit of Notification No. 138/CE dated 1-3-1986 in respect of 4 varieties of paper manufactured and cleared by them. The varieties of paper were glazed packaging tissue (GLPT), Laminating Base Tissue (LBT), Release Base Tissue (RBT), Coloured Release Base Tissue (CRBT). The dispute relates to the period 1-3-1986 to 20-3-1990. During the period the classification of the goods have been approved under Chapter Heading 4805.90 and the appellant had been all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the classification list effective from 1-4-1986 where the goods in question were enumerated under common serial No. V other uncoated paper and paper board in rolls sheets namely . While naming these goods; the appellant had specifically stated with regard to GLPT that the paper in question was Glazed Packing Tissue. With regard to LBT, it was amplified as lamination tissue . The duty paying document, namely, gate passes, showed that the same description as in the Classification List. He, therefore, submitted that a charge of suppression of facts cannot lie in the face of these documents. The learned counsel submitted that this is particularly so in view of the previous assessment actions taken by the department. During 1984 the same g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e classification list, gate passes and other documents. The goods were being assessed under exemption for several years. The department had drawn samples in 1984 specifically to consider whether the exemption was correctly available. In these facts and circumstances the demand which has been raised for the extended period alleging the ingredients of wilful suppression of facts with intent to evade duty (Proviso to S. 11A) cannot be upheld. The appeal is allowed on the ground of limitation and the impugned order is set aside in its entirety with consequential relief, if any, to the appellant. We do not consider it necessary to go into the merits of the dispute as the notice for short levy is not maintainable at the threshold on account of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
