1995 (1) TMI 155

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Ketchup. The appellants filed a declaration in terms of Notification No. 11/88-C.E. (N.T.), dated 18-4-1988 with the intention of availing the benefit in terms of Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986. In the said declaration they described their product as `Tomato Puree' classifiable under sub-heading 2104.90 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. On the basis of the enquiries made from the appellants in January 1989 when statements of some of their officers were recorded, they were served with a show cause notice dated 27-1-1992 alleging that they had misdeclared their product as classifiable under sub-heading 2104.90. On the grounds that the goods were correctly classifiable under sub-heading 2001.10, the appellan....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....L.T. 404. He submitted that the Collector's order invoking the extended period for confirmation of the demand in terms of the proviso to Section 11A on the grounds that the appellants had suppressed relevant facts was not sustainable. He contended that the demand issued by the department for a period beyond six months was time barred since the appellants had given in their declaration dated 16-4-1988 the correct description of the goods. He added that in January 1989 when the departmental officers had questioned the officers of the appellants' factory, they had furnished the details of the nature of the appellants' product. He contended that under these circumstances, the Collector's finding in regard to suppression of facts was erroneous.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... capacity could not be deemed as having been put up in unit containers and accordingly it was correctly classifiable under sub-heading 2001.90. 6. Next point to be examined is whether the Collector's order confirming the demand by invoking the extended period in terms of the proviso to Section 11A on the grounds of suppression is sustainable. The appellants have contended that they in the declaration filed in terms of Notification No. 11/88, dated 16-4-1988 for the year 1987-88 had correctly described their product. They have also stated that complete details about the nature of their product and the mode of its packing were furnished to the Department in January 1989 when the Central Excise officers had visited their factory for carryin....