TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (4) TMI 128
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppeal is filed by the appellant. 2. We have heard learned counsels appearing for the parties. 3. The assessee manufactured the product Jaljira powder. It filed a classification declaration from time to time, i.e., from 1994 to 1999 under Chapter sub-heading No. 0903.10 claiming exemption from payment of Central Excise Duty. The aforesaid declarations of the respondent were also approved by the department. The classification list of Jaljira as submitted by the respondent was approved by the department over the years, i.e., from 1994 to 1999 and, therefore, the aforesaid assessment reached finality. 4. However, subsequently, a circular was issued wherein it was stated that Jaljira masala cannot be treated as spice and that it has to be es....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Nishikawa Co. Ltd. v. CCE 2005 (188) ELT 149 is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. We may refer to paragraph 26 of the said judgment which reads as follows:- "26. In Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. Union of India [1988 (35) ELT 605 (SC)], this Court held that when the classification list continued to have been approved regularly by the department, it could not be said that the manufacturer was guilty of "suppression of facts". As noted herein earlier, we have also concluded that the classification lists supplied by the appellant were duly approved from time to time regularly by the Excise authorities and only in the year 1995, the department found that there was "suppression of facts" in the matter of post-formin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Court has held thus:- "We do not find any merit in these arguments. Nothing prevented the Department from calling upon the assessee over the years to produce their catalogues. The classification lists were duly approved by the Department from time to time. All the facts were known to the Department, whose officers had visited the factory of the assessee on at least 12 occasions. In the circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the reasoning given by the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that there was no wilful suppression on the part of the assessee enabling the Department to invoke the extended period of limitation under the proviso to section 11A(1) of the 1944 Act. However, we may clarify that the show-cause notices dated 24-6....