TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 1128X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Order-in-Original. The Tribunal had also, considering the fact that when there was a scope for doubt whether the goods were dutiable or not, refused to apply extended period of limitation. - as both the primary authority as well as the appellate Tribunal has found, as a matter of fact, that there was a genuine doubt with respect to dutiability, both the authorities did not find it appropriate to apply extended period of limitation to the facts of the case. - No reason to interfere as it is purely a finding of fact recorded by the authorities on appreciation of the material on record - Decided against Revenue. - C.E.A. No. 8 of 2006 - - - Dated:- 8-7-2015 - G. Chandraiah And Challa Kodanda Ram, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. Gopala K ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rty has not mentioned in their record jute waste and not gunny bag waste, there has been suppression of information. So long as we hold that rags are not gunny bag waste and gunny bags are not excluded raw materials for the purpose of concession, it does not matter how the gunny bag is described in documents. The amendments to Central Excise Notification No.48/91 dt.25.7.94 vide 30/93 shows unambiguously that Jute Waste shall include old gunny bag waste. Therefore, it still remains correct that gunny bag waste can be described as waste of jute products and in extension would be includible in Jute Waste. Therefore, there is not misdeclaration in raw material account. In addition, this description by itself would not prove the point of the sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... el Castings Co. (P) Ltd. 1998 (100) E.L.T. 8 (S.C.), H.M.M. Ltd. v. Collector 1996 (87) E.L.T. 593 (S.C.), Padmini Products v. Collector 1989 (43) E.L.T. 195 (S.C.), Pushpam Pharmaceuticals Company v. Collector 1995 (78) E.L.T. 401 (S.C.) and Tamil Nadu Housing Board v. Collector 1994 (74) E.L.T. 9 (S.C.), and refused to set aside the Order-in- Original with respect to the limitation by extending the extended period of limitation. Inasmuch as both the primary authority as well as the appellate Tribunal has found, as a matter of fact, that there was a genuine doubt with respect to dutiability, both the authorities did not find it appropriate to apply extended period of limitation to the facts of the case. 5. We do not see any reason to in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
