TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (1) TMI 443
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for the Respondent. [Order per : J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)]. - The Tribunal in Order No. C-II/3611-12/WZB/2000, dated 8-12-2000 [2001 (129) E.L.T. 207 (T)] disposed of two appeals where appeal Nos. E/72-R & V/2000-Mum. was filed by the Revenue and Appeal No. E/2504-R/99-Mum. was filed by the assessee, M/s. ICPA Health Products Pvt. Ltd. The issue was of classification of a product called "MOYZ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Commissioner the Tribunal held that invocation of Rule 9(2) of the CER, 1944 was not proper. On this ground the demand for duty and the penalty were set aside. Dealing with the appeal filed by the assessee the Tribunal observed that since the practice adopted by the assessee was known to be department for a substantial period, and therefore the charge of suppression could not sustain. The orders....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ctive. 7. The application for rectification moves in an entirely different direction which direction is not available from the findings of the CEGAT at all. 8. The second ground is that the Tribunal had erred in holding that suppression could not be established. In this respect the following observation made by the Larger Bench in their judgment reported in 2000 (118) E.L.T. 77 is mate....