2003 (12) TMI 175

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....awal, Member (T)]. - The issue involved in these two appeals, arising out of a common Order-in-Appeal, is whether the lay flat tubings which come into existence during the manufacture of LDPE bags are leviable to Central Excise duty and whether the extended period of limitation is invocable. 2. Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate submitted that the issue regarding excisability of lay flat tubing ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Central Excise duty; that this fact about their bona fide belief is clear from the statement of Shri Rajeev Sharma, Managing Director wherein he has clearly deposed that he was under the impression that their product was not dutiable. Learned Advocate, finally, submitted that it is a settled law that in order to invoke extended period of limitation the Department has to show that there was someth....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ble on intermediate product. 3. Countering the argument Shri P.M. Rao, learned Departmental Representative, submitted that the Tribunal has clearly held in the case of A.S. Processors Ltd. that lay flat tubes coming into existence at intermediate stage of manufacturing of plastic bags are dutiable; that Appellants had neither taken any registration for the manufacture of impugned product nor cl....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lay flat tubings was exempted prior to 12-3-97 under Notification No. 8/96-C.E., dated 23-7-96. Morever, it was again exempted from payment of duty by Notification No. 5/98, dated 2-6-98. Thus only during the period March, 1997 to 1-6-98 lay flat tubes attracted the Central Excise duty. In all the decisions relied upon by the learned Advocate, the Tribunal has held that there was no suppression as....