9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (4) TMI 367X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, for the Respondent. [Order per : S.L. Peeran, Member (J)]. - The Revenue is aggrieved with the Commissioner (Appeals) finding on time bar. The appellants had filed declaration and also had correspondence with the Department with regard to their product 'ATHIPHAL' manufactured by them to be classifiable as fertilizer under Chapter 31.01 of Central Excise Tariff Act. However, Department a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... em to be plant growth regulator, which is evident from the correspondence. The Commissioner has also relied on the letter of the Assistant Commissioner dtd. 8-10-90 accepting their plea after proper verification of the facts of the case. She has noted that 'merely because appellant claimed the item to be fertilizer, it cannot be held against them, when they had clearly declared in their declaratio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were declared. There was no intention to evade duty and therefore the Commissioner was justified in holding that larger period was not invocable. 6. On a careful consideration and on perusal of the documents, we notice that the documents had been scrutinized by the Assistant Commissioner. The appellants in their declaration had clearly indicated that 'athiphal' is a growth regulator. However ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out as to whether the same is a fertilizer or a plant growth regulator. As the details had been furnished in the declaration of the item being a growth promoter and the appellant's understanding that it is a fertilizer, therefore, the Commissioner's finding that appellants had not misdeclared or suppressed facts is a correct finding arrived after examining the documents on record. We find that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
