TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (12) TMI 989
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ribunal [the Tribunal] proposing the following questions: "1. Whether in the facts and the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal is justified in the eye of law, and has committed the substantial error of law, in holding that the demand raised qua the assessee-M/s. Sarla Polyster Ltd., for the period from 16-9-1999 to 28-2-2002, by way of the issuance of the show cause notice dated 4-9-2002, is barred by limitation? 2. Whether in the facts and the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal is justified in the eye of law, and has committed the substantial error in law, in holding that the revenue was not justified in invoking the extended period of limitation, by invoking the Proviso to Section -11[A][1] of the Cent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....posed upon the said assessee under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, on the ground that the invocation of the extended period is not sustainable? 6. Whether in the facts and the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal is justified in the eye of law, in setting aside the penalty of Rs. 44,89,000/- imposed upon Shri Krishna Jhunjhunwala, Director of the said assessee under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, read with Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, on the ground that the invocation of the extended period is not sustainable? 7. Whether in the facts and the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal is justified in the eye of law, in remanding the matter to reconsider de novo in the ligh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....est and penalty. The proceedings culminated into an order dated 23rd October, 2003 made by the adjudicating authority, whereby, the demand of central excise duty came to be confirmed along with penalty and interest. Separate penalty also came to be imposed on the director who is the respondent in Tax Appeal No. 2432 of 2009. 3. Both the assessee as well as the director challenged the order made by the adjudicating authority by filing separate appeals before the Tribunal. Vide the impugned order, the Tribunal, on merits, held against the assessee upholding the Commissioner's order as regards classification of the product. However, on the question of limitation, the Tribunal held that the extended period of limitation could not have bee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... upon appreciation of the evidence on record, has found that, as a matter of fact, the assessee did not mis-declare the description of the manufacturing process etc. The Tribunal, after recording that the Customs House had assessed the bill of entry of the same type of yarn classifying it under Sub-Heading: 56.06, observed that the said fact had not been disputed by the Revenue, and was accordingly of the view that the extended period of limitation could not have been invoked. 6. In the light of the facts noted herein above, it is apparent that the assessee, initially, was classifying the goods under Chapter sub-heading No. 54.02. However, upon noticing that the Customs authorities were clearing such yarn under Chapter 56, the assesse....