TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1999 (4) TMI 337
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....DR, for the Respondent. [Order per : J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)]. - The appellants filed several classification lists w.e.f. 1-4-1987 to 1-4-1991 describing the chemicals manufactured by them. One group was shown as "Metal Treatment Chemicals (various grades) under sub-heading 3810.00. One of the products. viz. MAXCLIN was got tested. The finding of the Chemical Examiner about this product was c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by limitation, he held that the assessees had given incomplete and vague description in their classification lists which amounted to misdeclaration with intend to evade duty in terms of Supreme Court Judgment in the case of Jayshree Engg. Co. v. C.C. reported in 1989 (40) E.L.T. 214. The present appeal is against this order. 2. Shri R.J. Parekh, ld. Counsel relied upon two judgments. It is c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ions. In six classification lists, covered the period 1987 to 1991 the assessees had given a generic description. It cannot be said that the description was wrong. It is correct that when that description was general, several chemicals could fall thereunder which could merit classification under different headings and sub-headings. In dealing with a situation like this Rule 173B as it then existed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ncorrectly described the goods with intent to evade the duty. For any such allegation to be made the department had to lead specific evidence. 5. We have seen the cited judgments of the Supreme Court. In that case, assessee was secured nuts. When he had the knowledge and he had described them in different name and classified. In that case the Supreme Court had no hesitation in upholding Trib....