2003 (3) TMI 624

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eading 8537.00. Accordingly, the demand of duty of Rs. 35,65,043.00 (Rupees thirty-five lakh sixty-five thousand and forty-three) has been confirmed against the appellants by way of issuance of a show cause notice dated 28-1-2000 for the period from 8-2-95 to 28-2-97. 2. We have heard Shri P.R. Das, learned Advocate for the appellants and Shri J.R. Madhiam, J.D.R. for the Revenue. The appellants have challenged the impugned Order on the point of classification as also on limitation. We find that the appeal can be disposed of on limitation itself, inasmuch as the show cause notice was issued on 28-1-2000 for the period from February, 1995 to February, 1997 i.e. beyond the normal period of six months, as provided under Section 11A of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....0 demanding the differential duty on Field Switch manufactured and cleared by the appellants during the period from 8-2-95 to 28-2-97, is legally valid in spite of the fact that the classification lists/declarations submitted by the noticee declaring the Field Switches, had already been approved by the Department. 3. After giving our careful consideration to the facts of the instant case, we do not find any justification in the above reasoning of the learned Adjudicating Authority. Section 110 of the Finance Act, 2000 does not give power to the Revenue to invoke the extended period of limitation and to confirm the demand even where the classification lists have been filed and approved by the proper officer. The provisions of Section....