TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1997 (2) TMI 227
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....12 as held by the authorities. The second issue is whether the demand is time barred. 2. Shri C.S. Lodha, ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants narrated the facts and submitted that the appellants purchased ultramarine blue in bulk packing and repacked them in smaller packings. He submits that the manufacturers of ultramarine blue were paying duty under Chapter Heading 32.06 and the appellants were not paying duty on the product; that CBEC issued a clarification on 7th December, 1990 stating that ultramarine blue in bulk form is appropriately classifiable under Chapter 32.06 and the same when put up in a small packing would be classified under Heading 32.12 of the CETA, 1985. He submits that consequent upon the issue of this clar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the above two judgments in which the judgment of various other High Courts were also taken into consideration. He submits that the ratio of these judgments covers their case on all fours and therefore, prays that insofar as the merits of the case are concerned, the appeal may be allowed. 4. On the question of limitation, ld. Counsel submits that the Govt. of India issued a notification u/s 11C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 which clearly shows that there were different practices being followed insofar as dutiability of the product was concerned. He submits that limitation also, is applicable in their case. 5. Shri A.K. Madan, ld. SDR reiterated the findings of the lower authorities. 6. Heard the submissions of both side....