2017 (9) TMI 222

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Appellant Shri R. Balagopal, Consultant for the Respondent ORDER Per Bench Brief facts are that the respondents were clearing the products namely PP bags & rolls, LD/LLD bags & rolls and HM bags (plaint and printed) manufactured by them and cleared by availing full exemption under Notification No. 9/2003 on the first clearance upto Rs. One crore and thereafter paid duty and also avail....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....st and imposed equal penalty besides separate penalty of Rs. 3,50,000/- under Rule 25 and also penalty of Rs. 30,000/- each on Shri K. Santhanakrishnan and Shri V. Kulandaivelu, who are partners of the respondent herein. In appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the demand on the ground of limitation observing that there is no suppression of facts on the part of the respondents. Being aggrieved,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....retch of imagination such goods could be compared to products that are capable of transmitting liquids or gases. Tubing will refer only to products that are not only tubular in structure but also fit for use as tubes. 3. With regard to the finding of the appellate authority that the demand is time-barred, ld. AR submitted that respondents on their own changed the classification by claiming the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... details were fully reflected in their ER-1 returns. On being pointed out, the respondent had immediately paid the differential duty. That the payment of lesser duty was only due to inadvertent error which has been rectified by the respondent on coming to know of the same. Further, it was also submitted by him that the department has not filed appeal against the individual partners and has filed a....