2000 (9) TMI 845

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... with the mandatory penalty of the same amount. Further, a penalty of Rs. 2.00 lakh has also been imposed under the provisions of Rule 173Q(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Apart from this personal penalty a sum of Rs. 5.00 lakh has been imposed upon the second appellant, Shri Jasbir Singh, Director of the appellant company. 2. The demand of duty has been raised for the period from 2-11-1991 to 15-3-1995, vide show cause notice dated 5-3-1997, on the alleged ground that the appellants' products were properly classifiable under Chapter heading 89.31, whereas they have been clearing the same under Heading 73.15 attracting nil rate of duty. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of parts suitable for use solely or principal....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he demand of duty against them by having recourse to the provisions of Section 11A of the Act. 5. We find that the Commissioner in his impugned Order has invoked the longer period of limitation by observing that the appellants have indulged into deliberate misstatement as regards the description of their product. He has observed that the appellants have not given the specifications and drawings of the goods manufactured and cleared by them, and have intentionally given the impression to the Revenue that the goods in question were items of general use. It was on account of the above non-declaration by the appellants that the classification lists were got approved from the proper officer. As such, he has justified the invocation of th....