2011 (9) TMI 604

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....From October, 2000 the appellants continued this activity. The appellants were issued 2 show-cause notices one dated 4.12.2001 for the period Nov.1996 to July 2001 demanding duty of Rs. 34,75,764/- and the other dated 13.6.2002 for the period August, 2001 to March, 2002 demanding duty of Rs. 91.940/-. The basis for the allegation in the show-cause notices was that the appellants were failed to determine and discharge the correct duty liability on one of their products viz. Aluminium Hydroxide Gel (AHG) which actually merits classification under sub- heading 2818.10 of the first schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and not under sub-heading 3002.00 of the CETA. The show-cause notices were adjudicated by the Commissioner of Central....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2000 since the notice was served on the appellants on 5.12.2001. Since the department was fully aware of the classification of the product since 1995 in view of the various classification lists submitted by them and various monthly returns were assessed by the department, the charge of suppression is not sustainable in law. He, therefore, submitted that the Order-in-Original needs to be set aside on the point of limitation. 3. The ld.SDR representing the Revenue submitted that the appellants were classifying the goods on their own under sub -heading 2818.10 and with effect from 19.9.95 without assigning any reason, they changed the classification to sub-heading 3002.00  and stopped paying duty. The Range Supdt. as early as on 10/11.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ting their RT.12 returns to the department. Therefore,  no suppression can be invoked. This is a fact on record that the appellants were classifying the product under sub-heading 2818.10 prior to 15.9.95. They themselves reclassified the product under sub-heading 3002.00 and stopped payment of duty. The Central Excise Officer wrote to them that the classification of the goods has already been approved under sub-heading 2818.10 and its classification under sub-heading 3002.00 was never approved by the department. The appellants also did not show the production and clearance of the AHG in the statutory records and returns. The details of production and clearance of the goods were not brought to the notice of the department. Even after th....