TMI Blog2002 (10) TMI 478X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appeals are being disposed of by one common order. 2. Shri R. Santhanam, learned Advocate, submitted that both the Appellants manufacture forged steel grinding media balls; that according to the Appellants these goods were classifiable under Heading 72.08 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act whereas the Department wanted to classify them under sub-heading No. 7308.90 of the Tariff; that the Appellate Tribunal vide Final Order No. E 1154-1157/1998-B, dated 28-7-98 [1999 (112) E.L.T. 142 (T)] rejected their appeals; that, however, the Tribunal vide Misc. Order Nos. 122-124/99 B-1, dated 22-10-99 allowed their applications for rectification of mistake as the issue of time bar was not examined; that the Tribunal remanded the mat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r part. He relied upon the decision in the case of Blue Max Sports Wear v. CCE, New Delhi, 2002 (143) E.L.T. 581 (T) and Padmini Products v. CCE, 1989 (43) E.L.T. 195 (S.C.) wherein it has been held that failure to pay duty or take out a licence is not necessary due to fraud or collusion or wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts or contravention of any provisions of the Act. Reliance has also been placed on the decisions in the case of Usha Udyog v. CCE, Kanpur, 2001 (136) E.L.T.1031 (T). and Garg Ispat Udyog Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur, 2001 (136) E.L.T. 918 (T). Finally, the learned Advocate claimed the benefit of small scale exemption and the Modvat credit of the duty paid on the inputs. He also mentioned that the adjudicating authority ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have considered the submissions of both the sides. We observe that the Tribunal, vide Final Order No. E/1154-1157-98-B1, dated 28-7-98, [1999 (112) E.L.T. 142 (T)] has decided the classification of grinding media ball manufactured by both the Appellants and dismissed the appeals filed by them. However, the Appellants had also filed the applications for rectification of mistake which were disposed of by the Tribunal vide Misc. Order Nos. 122-124/99-B1, dated 22-10-1999 by observing that Our orders are recalled in Order to deal with the ground of time bar and as the issue of time bar was not examined and a finding recorded at the Adjudicating stage the case is required to be remanded for a decision by the Commissioner on this issue of ti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... products. We, however, observe that the Commissioner has given his findings about SSI Notification by holding that the exemption would be available to them. The duty have to be demanded and calculated accordingly. The Revenue has neither come in Appeal against the said findings nor has filed any Cross Objection. Accordingly the benefit of SSI has to be extended to them and duty amount has to be computed after allowing the SSI exemption. 7. The Commissioner, in respect of M/s. Patwari Udyog, has held that extra limitation period for demanding the duty beyond normal period . would not be attracted as there is no act of mis-declaration or non-declaration or suppression of fact or mis-representation or fraud etc. . The Commissioner came ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
