9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (7) TMI 328X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emsp; Duty Penalty The India Thermit Corpn. Ltd. 62,60,022/- 62,60,022/- Sh. Alok Nagory, Mananging Director 1,00,000/- 2. Shri V. Lakshmikumaran, learned Advocate submitted that The India Thermit Corpn. Ltd. manufacture Thermit portions and Thermit welding equipments which were classified by them under heading 38.10 and under various sub-headings of Chapter 84 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, respec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould)", that as moulds made by them are for metal these are classifiable under heading 84.80 and not under Chapter 68. 3. Regarding the charge of undervaluation the learned Advocate mentioned that the department had taken the invoice price of Thermit portion cleared for sale to the Railway and the invoice price for self use on day to day basis; that most of the comparative figures are for the small quantity sold at higher price; that if the highest of the price for bulk sale to Railway is taken as comparative price, no differential duty will be payable by them at all; that further they had incurred freight of Rs. 50/- per Thermit portion and if this transport charge is reduced from the price charged by them the price declared by them ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that where there is likelihood of products attracting another heading it is imperative on the part of the Assessee to make a clear mention of the substance/material out of which the product is made so as to manifest clearly and completely the material information, details and particulars pertinent to the product leading to the correct classification of the products as declared in the classification list/declaration; that in the list attached to the classification list/declaration filed by the appellants such indispensible information about substance/material out of which the products were made was not given. He also relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Saurashtra Chemicals v. Collector of Customs, Bombay, 1986 (23) E.L. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he case of Sanjay Steel Co. v. C.C., Ahmedabad, 1996 (84) E.L.T. 307, wherein it was held that non-disclosure of clauses of agreement will be enough to invoke longer period of limitation. 5. In reply learned Advocate mentioned that they were filing right from 1978 onwards the price list. He referred to pages 597 and 598 of their paper-book which contains a summary of the price list filed by them and date of approval by the Department. He also mentioned that they were filing the price list in Part-1 for the goods cleared for self use as per direction of the Department under letter C. No. 20/Misc./Thermit/78/666, dated 15-6-1978. Regarding the charge that they had not disclosed the substance/material of which the products were manufactu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
