2009 (6) TMI 270

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2003 Shri V.V. Hariharan, JCDR, for the Appellant. Shri H.G. Dharmadhikari, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per: Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President]. - The assessees herein are engaged in the manufacture of fruit pulp based beverages under the brand name "Frooti, Pingo" etc. in tetrapacks. The same falls for classification under CET Sub-heading 2202.90 chargeable to duty until they w....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mand rejecting the contention of the assessees that sugar syrup was not a stable product and did not have shelf life beyond 72 hours and also rejected the contention of the assessees that the demand was barred by limitation. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the contention of the assessees both on merits as well as on limitation; hence this appeal by the Revenue. 2. We have heard both sides. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Commissioner (Appeals) on this aspect is contained in para 9(c) of the impugned order which is reproduced herein below:- "As regards the charge of suppression of facts regarding manufacture and excisability of Sugar Syrup and applicability of extended period of limitation, I find from the records that the appellants have submitted the ground plan clearly showing the location of plant and machin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... The CEGAT in CCE, Indore v. Venkatesh Beverages had held a similar view in identical circumstances in regard to suppression of facts. Respectfully following the ratio held by Tribunal, I, therefore, hold that extended period of limitation under proviso to Section 11A(1) cannot be invoked in the appellants case." 3. We find that in the case of Venkatesh Beverages reported in 2001 (128) E.L.T. 7....