TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1999 (7) TMI 169
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. - Vide the impugned Order, the Commissioner has confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 14,31,602.00 and has imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 14,32,000.00. The demand has been confirmed by invoking the larger period of limitation i.e. for the period from March, 1992 to December, 1992 and March, 1994 to December, 1995, whereas the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lassification the actual use of the product shall be ascertained. Based upon the Test Report, the Classification List was approved by the appellants' jurisdictional Central Excise Officer as under 3506.00. 3. Thereafter, the appellants received a show cause notice issued on 10-5-1996 raising demand of duty on the ground that the correct classification of the product was under Chapter 3909.60....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppellants suppressed the fact that their final product was manufactured by a process of polyurethane reacting with Iso-Cyanide and had the process of manufacture been declared, a correct classification would have been approved by the Department. It is the contention of the learned Advocate that everything was disclosed by them in their Classification List and the Department before approving the sa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Advocate's pleas on limitation, Shri R.K. Roy, learned Advocate reiterated the findings of the authorities below and submitted that the Commissioner has rightly observed that the process of manufacture was not declared in the Classification List. It is the duty of the assessee to declare the correct classification of their product. As such he submitted that the longer period has been rightly inv....