TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1999 (1) TMI 114
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....k, JDR, for the Respondents. [ Order per : G.R. Sharma, Member (T) ]. - These are Five Appeals. Of these, Four Appeals have been filed by M/s. M.R. Textile Mills and one Appeal by M/s. M.R. Textile Industries. Since the issue in all these five appeals is the same, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2.   The facts, in brief, leading to the present....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....901.10, the fabrics are required to be coated. He referred to the exemption Notification No. 253/82, dated 8-11-1982 and submitted that backfilling is a process admitted in the notification and was distinct from coating. He submitted that backfilling continued to be process as was admitted against Sl. No. 5 of Notification No. 79/86, dated 10-2-1986. He submitted that admittedly backfilling is a p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Counsel, therefore, prayed that the Appeals may be allowed. 5.   Countering the arguments of the ld. Counsel, Shri A.M. Tilak, the ld. JDR submits that the samples were taken from the goods manufactured by the Appellants and the Chemical Examiner categorically opined that the sample was a coated one with starch and glue. He submitted that on re-test by the Deputy Chief Chemist, the opinion ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion list for the relevant period, it was a clear case of suppression with an intent to evade payment of duty. He submitted, therefore, that the demand is not hit by limitation. He, therefore, prayed that the impugned order may be upheld and the appeal may be rejected. 7.  Heard the submissions of both sides. On careful consideration of the pleas taken by both the sides, we find that on meri....