2005 (3) TMI 250

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 202/98-C.E., dated 20-5-1988; that the tubes and pipes manufactured out of flats not exceeding 5 mm in thickness are exempt from duty under the Notification; that the demand pertains to the period from 26-3-1990 to 30-3-1992; that when the matter was first heard by the Appellate Tribunal the same was remanded vide Final Order No. 1937/2000-B dated 23-11-2000 [2001 (127) E.L.T. 210 (Tri.)] to examine the time bar issue afresh and also to work out the correct duty payable by the Appellants. The learned Advocate, further, submitted that during the relevant period a dispute was going on between the department and the suppliers of raw material regarding correct classification of their products; that the department classified the product of the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... they had themselves written the first letter in January, 1991 to the department and as such their bona fide is evident. He relied upon the decision in the case of CCE, Hyderabad v. Pharmasia P. Ltd. - 1997 (92) E.L.T. 464 (S.C.) wherein it has been held by the Supreme Court that exchange of correspondence between the assessee and Excise Department does not constitute mis-representation. He also relied upon the decision in the case of Garg Ispat Udyog Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur - 2001 (136) E.L.T. 918 (T) wherein it has been held that as the correct classification of goods was in dispute no intention on the part of the assessee to evade payment of duty by resorting to suppression/mis-statement of facts can be attributed. 2.2 The learned Advocat....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....as only in their letter dated 29-4-1991 that the details regarding date of production, total production, total purchase of inputs alongwith its thickness were furnished by the Appellants; that therefore, at the most the department came to know about the matter only from the date of receipt of letter dated 29-4-1991. 4. We have considered the submissions of both the side. Notification No. 202/88-C.E., dated 20-5-1988 exempted tubes & pipes of steel other than seamless tube and pipe of steel provided these were manufactured out of skelp, hoops, sheets of thickness not exceeding 5 mm, strips of thickness not exceeding 5 mm and flats of thickness not exceeding 5 mm. It is not in dispute that the gate-passes under which the Appellants receive....