2006 (4) TMI 367

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ant. Shri M.S. Srinivasa, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : S.L. Peeran, Member (J)]. -  The Revenue is aggrieved with the Commissioner (Appeals) finding on time bar. The appellants had filed declaration and also had correspondence with the Department with regard to their product 'ATHIPHAL' manufactured by them to be classifiable as fertilizer under Chapter 31.01 of Central ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....en all the facts and had declared the item to be plant growth regulator, which is evident from the correspondence. The Commissioner has also relied on the letter of the Assistant Commissioner dtd. 8-10-90 accepting their plea after proper verification of the facts of the case. She has noted that 'merely because appellant claimed the item to be fertilizer, it cannot be held against them, when they ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Rules. Ld. Counsel submits that all the details were declared. There was no intention to evade duty and therefore the Commissioner was justified in holding that larger period was not invocable. 6. On a careful consideration and on perusal of the documents, we notice that the documents had been scrutinized by the Assistant Commissioner. The appellants in their declaration had clearly indica....