TMI Blog1999 (2) TMI 205X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice dated 22-2-1991, as there was mis-statement and suppression of facts. The plea of demands being time barred has not been agreed to by the Additional Collector. He has also imposed penalty of Rs. 5,000/- under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. In Appeal No. E/1294/92, demand of Rs. 20,349.37 for the period from October, 1988 to March, 1990 has been confirmed in terms of show cause notice dated 25-6-1991. The same plea of time bar has not accepted. 2. The Director of the company Sri Ashokan appears and submits that in this case they have filed classification lists from time to time and that they had declared goods as waste and scrap of steel under Heading 72.03 and such materials could not be treated as fresh steel sheets ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... classification, if their understanding was not correct. They cannot allege suppression of mis-statement, as all the facts were available with the department. He points out that at the stay stage itself, both the Members vide independent orders had clearly taken a view that the appellants have made out a strong prima facie case on the time bar issue and they are not guilty of suppression for levy of duty by invoking the larger period. Both the Members had referred to Trade Notice No. 51/88, dated 28-3-1988. He further points out that the appellant is a small scale industry and in respect of big units like Bajaj Auto Ltd., the department had taken a similar view by invoking larger period and re-classifying the items as steel and not as steel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... brought out the manner in which tin cuttings and punching waste arise from tin plate, tinfree steel and tinmill black plate as unusable waste and percentage of consumption of punching waste and percentage of consumption of tin cuttings had been indicated. The potent of this declaration detailed that the department was made aware that the sheets had not been utilised upto 100% and therefore, certain surface area thereon still remain unutilised, but despite this the appellants regarded them as waste and scrap. In view of the letters and correspondences, it is clear that there was no suppression or mis-declaration in the matter and the department had examined all the issues before approving the classification list, therefore, to allege suppres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
