TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (9) TMI 19
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fication only No. 24039910 Section V Chapter 24 and set aside the order of the adjudicating authority confirming the demand, interest and penalty on the ground that the demand raised by the department was barred by limitation. 2. The respondent has also filed a Cross Objection wherein he has challenged the classification of the goods marketed by him under Chapter 24. According to the respondent the goods marketed by him ought to have been classified under Entry No. 24012090 Section V Chapter 24. 3. Briefly put facts relevant for disposal of appeal and cross objection are that the respondent M/s. Parveen Tobacco Co. (P) Ltd. is engaged in manufacture of small pouches of unbranded chewing tobacco and marketing it. Earlier the company wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....riff Entry 24039910 in dispute 24, a show cause notice raising excise duty demand was issued to the respondent on 19-12-2008. Respondent contested the show cause notice and took the plea that the demand under the show cause notice was time barred and also that the tobacco pouches marketed by him were covered under classification only 24012090 Chapter 24. The adjudicating authority after giving due hearing to the respondent rejected his plea and confirmed the demand to the extent of Rs. 10,59,966/- and interest besides that he also imposed penalty. Penalty of Rs. 50,000/- was imposed on the Director of the Company. The excise duty and interest were recovered and appropriated against the demand. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the adjudicating ord....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oner, Central Excise, Division-II, New Delhi. The respondent has clearly mentioned the raw material used by him for manufacturing small pouches of unbranded tobacco and he even disclosed the process for manufacturing the pouches. Thus, it is contended that everything was honestly disclosed to the department, as such the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly held that this is not a case of suppression of facts, concealment or mis-representation which is justified the extension of period of limitation under Section 11A from one year to five years. 10. The respondent has placed on record photocopy of his letter dated 25-5-2007 addressed to the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Division-II New Delhi which was received on the same day vide....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is contended by the ld. Counsel for the respondent that Commissioner (Appeals) has misinterpreted Chapter 24 and he ought to have classified the product in question under Entry No. 24012090 of Chapter 24. 12. Shri Nagesh Pathak, ld. AR for the appellant on the contrary has reiterated the order of the adjudicating authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) in this regard. 13. In order to appreciate the contention of ld. Counsel for the respondent it would be helpful to have a look on the relevant entries in Chapter 24 as also the chapter notes. 14. Entry No. 24012090 falls in Chapter 24 under the heading unmanufactured tobacco; tobacco refuse and it deals with categories other than the categories classified under this heading relating....