TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1751X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 17.1.2018 - the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly held that in this case the description indicated in the ER-1 filed by the respondent is clear enough and makes it very clear that the said product is a pipe which is manufactured by using the HDPE raw material and, therefore, the true nature and type of the product has been informed to the department. There is no error committed by the ld. Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. The brief facts of the case is that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods falling under Chapter Heading No. 73 85 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. It was noticed during the audit that the respondent is manufacturing and clearing excisable goods namely, PLB HDPE duct, by wrongly classifying that under Central Excise Tariff Heading No. 85176 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rdingly, a show cause notice demanding the differential duty along with interest was confirmed and the penalty by the lower adjudicating authority after following the due process of law. 3. Ld. AR, on behalf of Revenue submitted that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly held that the demand is barred by limitation without discussing the merits of the case. In this case, although the ER-I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opted by the respondent and, therefore, this is not the case of suppression of fact and, hence, the demand is time barred. Therefore, he argued that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly set aside the impugned order on the ground of limitation. 5. Heard the parties and perused the case record. 6. After going through the impugned order, we find that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has hel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. CCE, Mumbai-II 2010 (262) ELT 751 (Tri.-Mumbai); (iv) Synpol Products Ltd. Vs. CCE ST, Ahmedabad 2016 (335) ELT 697 (Tri.-Ahmd.). 7. After perusal of the aforesaid case law and the record of the appeal, we are of the considered view that there is no error committed by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order. Accordingly, we hold the same a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
