TMI Blog2002 (2) TMI 1268X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Excise Act. The extended period contemplated in that proviso is attracted only to cases involving fraud, collusion, suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty etc. 2. We have perused the records and have heard both the sides. The learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that the facts and circumstances of this case did not permit of a demand beyond the normal period of limitation. The learned Counsel pointed out that the appellant is a unit engaged in the manufacture of the said grinding media for several years and the manufacturing activities carried out by the appellant were in the knowledge of the Central Excise authorities. He pointed out that previously a show cause notice dated 15-7-87 had been issued and Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uced with effect from 28-2-86 and in view of the adoption of harmonized system of nomenclature, any earlier decision and ruling, order etc. cannot be suo motu extended to such products whose classification stand changed accordingly. Since the unit was earlier order exempted sector not duly licensed or registered, therefore, they were not filing proper classification list and price list giving opportunity to the department to examine the products for its classification and valuation for purposes of determination of duty. The demands were raised in view of the changed circumstances i.e. due to introduction of new Tariff. It is not that the assessee were totally new to the scheme of Central Excise law and procedure and therefore, there would b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is not whether a new tariff had come into existence but whether the facts of the case were suppressed with intent to evade payment of duty. Learned Counsel contended that the introduction of new tariff is relevant for the purpose of classification of the goods and not to the question as to whether any suppression of facts was involved. The Counsel pointed out that the Commissioner s finding in Order No. 25 that there is no act of misdeclaration or non-declaration or suppression of facts or misrepresentation or fraud equally applied to the period involved in the present proceedings. 4. It is not in dispute that the duty liability of the appellant was a subject of proceedings before the present show cause notice. In both the adjudication Or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
