2017 (3) TMI 602

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ne for Appellant Shri Ashutosh Nath, AC (AR) for Respondent ORDER Per Raju The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Particle Boards including Veneered Particle Board. A demand show-cause notice was issued to the appellant denying the benefit of Notification No. 12/2004 amending Notification No. 6/2002. The said notification exempts 100% wood free plain and pre-laminated particl....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er authorities have presumed that the veneered is wood. No sample has been taken at any stage and the material has never been tested. The appellant had changed the classification of the product to 4406.90 w.e.f. 4.2.2004, however, no notice of this change was made and goods were held liable to classification under Chapter 4406.30 in the impugned order. It was argued that it has been presumed that ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....argued that the penalty has been wrongly imposed on the appellant as there was no mis-declaration on their part.   3. Learned AR relied on the impugned order. 4. We have gone through the rival submissions. We find that earlier veneer laminated board was classified by the appellant under Heading 4406.30, however, w.e.f. 4.2.2004 they sought classification under 4406.90. The said change h....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....followed the different procedure and filed a revised classification seeking to classify the same under Heading 4406.90 prospectively w.e.f. 4.2.2004. We find that the appellant could not have challenge the assessment for the period covered by the earlier order dated 24.12.2003. However, it is open to the appellant to challenge the same for the subsequent period. We find that the impugned order mer....