TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (1) TMI 415
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant. Ms. K.A. Mishra, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : C.N.B. Nair, Member (T)]. - Both these appeals are directed against the same order in adjudication. Accordingly, both were taken up for hearing together and are disposed of under this common order. 2. The first appellant M/s. GSC Toughened Glass Pvt. Ltd. is a manufacturer of Glass and glass articles. Goods produced were cleared....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....duty demand and imposed an equivalent amount of penalty on the appellant. There is also demand for payment of interest on the unpaid Central Excise duty. The order also imposed penalty of Rs. 3.5 lakhs on Shri Saranjit Singh, Director of the Company. The appellants challenge the findings and the imposition of duty and penalties. 3. It is the submission of the appellant-manufacturer that the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s and glassware under six headings and had claimed classification of the products under different heading of Chapter 70 of Central Excise Tariff. He has pointed out, in particular, that goods for which classification under Heading 70.15 was claimed were described as "Other articles of glass including those of a kind used for table, kitchen, office, indoor decoration or similar purposes". The Couns....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ents were made available to the authorities contemporaneously. Therefore, the charge of suppression of facts is not maintainable. 4. We have perused the records and have considered the submissions made by both sides. The appellant is right in his submission that all relevant facts had been disclosed contemporaneously to the authorities. Apart from the declaration of the goods as articles of ....