TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (3) TMI 744
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....issued to M/s. ITW India Limited-respondent firm is set-aside stating that the show cause notice is time-barred. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent firm is manufacturers of non-destructive testing equipments and consumables. According to the Revenue, there was a godown at Plot No. 31, APIIC, Phase-II, IDA, Pashamylaram in Medak District. The godown premises is not registered nor declared with the Central Excise Department. The respondent firm is repacking certain chemicals in the said godown premises. The chemicals namely ZYGLO-ZP-4B and 9C RED concentrate were received in bulk packing of 205 litre of drums and those were repacked into small packs of 1 kg. and cleared as 'trading goods' without payment of duty. On ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Government. The respondent firm in reply to the show cause notice stated, inter alia, that the show cause notice is clearly barred by the time as there is no suppression of facts with any mala fide intention to evade payment of duty as it has brought to the notice of the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Hyderabad by its letter dated 28-7-1992 about the nature of activities carried out by it in Phase II, IDA, Pashamylaram i.e. repacking of imported Magnaflux 9C RED into smaller pack and its classification under sub-heading 2812.90; that the Commissioner, Central Excise, Hyderabad by his O-I-O No. 36/97, dated 28-11-1997 had also dropped the demand on the manufacture of Magnaflux consumables and fluid products including the aspect of s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Tribunal erred in holding that the intimation sent on 28-7-1992 by the respondent firm was sufficient to put the department to notice about the respondent firm converting the material into small packs; that the DGCEL Officers had visited the respondent firm at Plot No. 31, Phase-II IDA, Pashamylaram, Medak District and found the discrepancy in classification of the products and non-intimation of the activity of repacking, and issued show cause notice dated 29-3-2000; that the Tribunal failed to notice that the intimation given by the respondent firm was in respect of premises at Plot No. 36, Phase II, IDA, but not in respect of premises at Plot No. 31 and that the Tribunal should have seen that the show cause notice was issued in respec....