2005 (11) TMI 409

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....for the Appellant. Shri D.H. Nadkarni, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : Moheb Ali M., Member (T)]. -  Revenue is aggrieved by the order of Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) who held that the demand is time barred. 2. The respondent manufactures cables. He removed goods said to be aluminium wire rods, without payment of duty, under Rule 57(3) of the Central Ex....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ould have been cleared under Rule 57F(5) on payment of duty. This amounted to suppression (clearing goods under a wrong description). The respondent pleaded before the Commissioner that he correctly described the goods as remnants of aluminium rods as they emerged as rods only during the process of manufacturing aluminium cables/wires. The Commissioner did not accept the contention and held that t....