9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (9) TMI 324X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Gowri Shankar, Member (T)]. - The assessee was a manufacturer of rolls for rolling mills, which were classifiable at the relevant period in 1986 under Heading 84.55 of the tariff at 12% ad valorem. It filed a classification list effective from 12th March, 1986 classifying the goods indicating the rate of duty payable at 15%. However during the period fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lity to duty in order to establish its bonafide. He therefore says that the appeal is limited to the penalty imposed. He contends that the extended period will not apply because the appellant in the RT 12 return filed on 4th January, 1986 had indicated the rate of duty paid at 12%. It had also enclosed the duplicate gate pass which showed the duty paid at 12%. Therefore, he says the extended perio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 175/86 related to grant of exemption to small scale units and did not apply to the product manufactured by the appellant. The appellant had not claimed the notification in the classification list filed by it. At the same time, we do not see how the classification list would mislead the Department into thinking that the correct rate of duty was 12%. The endorsement in the classification list is "PL ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctly been paid. The fact that the Superintendent, while finalising the RT 12 return in March 1987, has endorsed on the remarks of the RT 12 return proves that the data in the gate passes and RT 12 return was supplied to show the correct position that the duty payable is 12% and not 15%. By this time, it was too late to issue a notice for recovery of duty without invoking the extended period. The C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
