2007 (9) TMI 513

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Appellant. Shri Sameer Chitkara, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. -  After hearing both sides, we find that the duty of Rs. 4,82,432/- stands confirmed against the appellant in respect of clearances of Thermo Plasto Elastomere (TPE) during the period 1996-97 upto 11-9-99, by following the concessional rate of duty in terms of Notification No. 1/93-C....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... facts from the department by willful misdeclaration and with an intent to evade the payment of Central Excise duty. The Commissioner (Appeal), while dealing with the aspect of limitation, has observed as  under : "As regards, the appellants plea that they have filed declaration under Rule 173B, I find that the appellants had mis-declared/suppressed the facts that their products TPE compou....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....advocate. Wrong claim of benefit of notification, by any stretch of imagination can amount to mis-statement or suppression of the facts so as to invoke the longer period. The appellants had admittedly declared TPE in the said declaration in order to claim the benefit of notification. As per the appellants, the said claim was made by them under a reasonable belief that the Sr. No. 5 of the Annexure....