TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (8) TMI 13
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e manufacturing process stating: "Brief Manufacturing Process of Paper Based Laminated Sheets: The process of manufacture of the above products involving is in three major stages are as under: 1. Preparation of Reactive Mixtures like (i) Melamine formaldehyde and (ii) Phenol formaldehyde. The reactive mixture process involves mixing of Melamine Powder with Formaldehyde and Phenol with Formaldehyde in separate chemical reaction vessels, separately under high steam pressure and continuous sterling. The reactive mixture are used for treatment of various papers, used for the manufacture of paper based laminated sheets. 2. Paper treating process: Under the process absorbent Kraft paper is treated with Phenol Formaldehyde reactive mixture and Overlay Tissue paper and design prints or colour base papers are treated with Melamine formaldehyde reactive mixture under stream through chemical treating and drying 3. Hydraulic pressing process This process is the last and final one which involves hydraulic pressing of various layers chemical mixture treated papers under high hydraulic pressure and steam temperature. During the process the reactive mixtures treated papers are....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....10 SCC 350] wherein it was held that in respect of such products classification as provided for in Entry 39.20 would be applicable, stating: "Note (d) clearly provides that products consisting of glass fibres or sheet of paper impregnated with plastics and compressed together as in the present case, if they have a hard and rigid character, would fall under Chapter 39. If they have more the character of paper or of articles of glass fibres, they would be classified under Chapter 48 or Chapter 70, as the case may be the decorative laminated sheets which have a hard and rigid character are, therefore, classifiable under Chapter 39 and not under Chapter 48. The appropriate entry is 3920.31/3920.37 which deals, inter alia, with sheets of other plastics, rigid, laminated. Decorative laminated sheets, therefore, cannot be classified under Tariff Entry 4818.90/4823.90. CEGAT is not right in classifying these under Entry 4818.90/4823.90." 7. The said view was reiterated by this Court in Decent Laminates Private Limited v. Collector of Central Excise and Customs [2002 (146) ELT 487]. 8. A notice was issued on 9.12.1997 to the Respondent to show case as to why: "(i) central excise....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e industry and as per approval of classification list granted by the competent authority it cannot be said that exemption has incorrectly been availed." [Emphasis supplied] 11. It was further stated: "………The solution of Phenol Formal dehyd. and Melamine was being prepared in house and it was being considered in the industry as Resin and was honestly described as such in the classification list." 12. The Commissioner of Excise rejected the said contention of the Respondent. Aggrieved thereby and dissatisfied therewith Respondent preferred an appeal before the Custom Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. By reason of the impugned judgment, the same has been allowed opining that although the benefit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ra) on 10th March, 1997. The impugned notice was issued only on 9.12.1997 evidently relying on or on the basis thereof. 18. It is not a case where the Respondents had not disclosed the activities of manufacturing products carried out by them by declaration or otherwise. They responded to each and every query of the Appellant, as and when called upon to do so. The authorities of the Appellant must have verified the said disclosures. At least they are expected to do so. The disclosure made by the Respondent was acceptable to them. Their bona fide was never questioned. 19. The applicability of the extended period of limitation, is, therefore, required to be considered in the aforementioned context. Proviso, it is trite, provides for an exception. It is not the rule. A case therefore has to be made out for attracting the same. 20. In Primella Sanitary Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of C.Ex., Goa [2005 (184) ELT 117] a Three-Judge Bench of this Court was dealing with a case where a concession was made by a counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue. The court opined that although the item was put under right classification list but they had not been permitted to take a differe....