1999 (2) TMI 241

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d from Rs. 52,36,649/- in the show cause notice on the basis of revised figures of clearances furnished by the applicants and certified as correct by the Vice President (Finance) of the applicant company) on knitted fabrics containing elastomeric yarn manufactured by the appellants herein as a result of their classification under CET sub heading 6002.30, instead of under CET sub-heading 6002.90 as claimed by the appellants. A penalty of equal amount has been imposed under the provisions of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act and a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- has been imposed under Rule 173Q. 2. Shri M. Chandrashekharan, learned Counsel disputes the classification of the goods contending that the goods fall for classification under CE....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pleads that the applicants cannot be held guilty of any suppression so as to warrant invoking the larger period of limitation. His next submission is that the valuation of the goods has not been done in accordance with the provisions of Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excise Act and that the benefit of Small Scale exemption notification has not been extended to the goods and if the benefit of demand of duty element and the benefit of SSI notification is extended, the duty liability would get reduced to Rs. 36,50,996/-. Lastly he pleads financial hardship drawing our attention to the declaration of the unit as a sick unit by the BIFR and submits that the financial position is so bleak as to disentitle the applicants from complying with th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....efit is not available to the goods. 6. On the financial aspect, he urges that the risk to the Revenue may be kept in view while passing the order on the said application. 7. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. The issue of classification is highly debatable and is to be gone, into when the appeal is taken up for hearing and not at this stage when it cannot be said that prima facie the goods fall under the heading claimed by the appellants. The aspect of valuation is also to be considered when the appeal is heard. Prima facie the demand is not barred by limitation since the appellants have nowhere described their goods to the Central Excise authorities and even the description given in the shipping bills as kn....