2003 (12) TMI 175

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed in these two appeals, arising out of a common Order-in-Appeal, is whether the lay flat tubings which come into existence during the manufacture of LDPE bags are leviable to Central Excise duty and whether the extended period of limitation is invocable. 2. Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate submitted that the issue regarding excisability of lay flat tubing has been decided by the Tribunal in the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... out their bona fide belief is clear from the statement of Shri Rajeev Sharma, Managing Director wherein he has clearly deposed that he was under the impression that their product was not dutiable. Learned Advocate, finally, submitted that it is a settled law that in order to invoke extended period of limitation the Department has to show that there was something more than mere inaction or failure .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ering the argument Shri P.M. Rao, learned Departmental Representative, submitted that the Tribunal has clearly held in the case of A.S. Processors Ltd. that lay flat tubes coming into existence at intermediate stage of manufacturing of plastic bags are dutiable; that Appellants had neither taken any registration for the manufacture of impugned product nor cleared the same on payment of duty; that .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 3-97 under Notification No. 8/96-C.E., dated 23-7-96. Morever, it was again exempted from payment of duty by Notification No. 5/98, dated 2-6-98. Thus only during the period March, 1997 to 1-6-98 lay flat tubes attracted the Central Excise duty. In all the decisions relied upon by the learned Advocate, the Tribunal has held that there was no suppression as no classification list or intimation was .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he part of the manufacturer, conscious or deliberate withholding of information which the manufacturer knows otherwise has to be proved before he can be saddled with liability beyond a period of six months under the provisions of Section 11A(1) of the Act. In the present matter, no such mala fide intention has been brought on record. We, therefore, hold that the entire demand of duty is time barre .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X