1999 (2) TMI 205

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....extent of Rs. 48,194.50 demanded in show cause notice dated 22-2-1991, as there was mis-statement and suppression of facts. The plea of demands being time barred has not been agreed to by the Additional Collector. He has also imposed penalty of Rs. 5,000/- under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. In Appeal No. E/1294/92, demand of Rs. 20,349.37 for the period from October, 1988 to March, 1990 has been confirmed in terms of show cause notice dated 25-6-1991. The same plea of time bar has not accepted. 2.  The Director of the company Sri Ashokan appears and submits that in this case they have filed classification lists from time to time and that they had declared goods as waste and scrap of steel under Heading 72.03 and such m....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....etal scrap and the department had not accepted the classification, if their understanding was not correct. They cannot allege suppression of mis-statement, as all the facts were available with the department. He points out that at the stay stage itself, both the Members vide independent orders had clearly taken a view that the appellants have made out a strong prima facie case on the time bar issue and they are not guilty of suppression for levy of duty by invoking the larger period. Both the Members had referred to Trade Notice No. 51/88, dated 28-3-1988. He further points out that the appellant is a small scale industry and in respect of big units like Bajaj Auto Ltd., the department had taken a similar view by invoking larger period and ....