2008 (5) TMI 244

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the differential duty amounting to Rs. 21,05,004.00 (Rupees twenty- one lakhs five thousand and four) for the period January, 1995 to October, 1999 on the ground that the respondents had cleared "Crispator Glass'as Toughened Safety Glass by wilfully suppressing / misdeclaring the product. In the Show Cause Notice, it was proposed that the impugned goods would be classified under Sub-Heading 8418.90 instead of Sub-Heading 7004.10 under which the duty was paid. 3. The Adjudicating Commissioner under his Order dated 14-5-04 has dropped the proceedings both on merits and limitation, which on subsequent review by the Board has led to filing of the present Appeal. It is seen that the Adjudicating Commissioner has primarily relied on the Board's ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s and has merely made a bland statement that the Interpretative Rules do support the case of the Assessee. Such an observation is quite vague. In fact, the Adjudicating Authority has not examined the process of manufacturing of the impugned goods and its usuage and functions, which would have helped him to make a proper application of the Interpretative Rules and decide the proper classification. 5. We also find that his observation that this is a clear case where the limitation period should be applicable, is an observation without proper examination of the case. He has referred to the Department's letter dated 28-10-99 and has wrongly concluded that the Department was aware of the sales to the Refrigerator Manufacturing Units. He has ove....