9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1429X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng non-payment of duty on 'left out material' and also misclassification of the goods resulting into short payment of duty. On adjudication, the Ld. Commissioner confirmed the demand for normal period in relation to classification of the product by setting aside the demand for extended period on the same issue, whereas he has confirmed demand on non-payment of duty relating to left out materials invoking extended period of limitation. 2. The Ld. Advocate Sh. Vyas for the appellant submits that in the present appeal, they challenged confirmation of demand invoking extended period of limitation in relation of 'left out material'. It is his contention that even though duty was demanded invoking extended period of limitation al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yment of duty or otherwise from time to time during the relevant period. Therefore, there was no suppression of fact, accordingly, the demand confirmed against them on left out material, needs to be set aside. 3. Per contra, Ld. AR for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the Ld. Commissioner. He has submitted that since there was approved classification list in relation to the classification dispute for earlier period, the Ld. Commissioner dropped the demand for the extended period on the classification issue. He submits that however the demand was confirmed for the normal period on the said classification issue. Further he submits that since the appellant could not correlate the referral GP-1s with the subsequent clearances without pay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same Show Cause Notice, the demand has been confirmed invoking extended period of limitation. The Revenue tried to distinguish the action arguing that both issues are different and the classification since raised earlier therefore the demand was set aside by the Commissioner for extended period of limitation. Further, we find that the appellant has argued that since all the facts relating to clearance of left over materials disclosed in filing the relevant GP-1s alongwith monthly RT-12, therefore, no suppression of fact could be attributable for failure on their part to correlate between the GP-1 against which duty was paid initially on the machine and the GP against which subsequently left over parts/ components had been cleared by them. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
