Back
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND GOLD (CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
S.S. KANG, V.K. Agrawal, JJ.
Pulak Enterprises -Appellant
Versus
Collector of Central Excise, Patna -Respondent
Final Order No. 1295/99-B Appeal No. E/5013/93-B
Decided On : 22-11-1999
Per V.K. Agrawal :
The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Pulak Enterprises is whether Shutter Lath is classifiable under sub-heading 7216.20 as claimed by them or under sub-heading 7308.90 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff as decided by the Collector in the impugned order and whether the extended period of limitation is invokable in the facts of the matters.
2. The appellants have requested vide their telegram dated 16.11.99 to decide the appeal on merits. We, therefore, heard Shri M.P. Singh, learned DR. and perused the records. The learned D.R. reiterated the findings contained in the impugned order.
3. We observe from the perusal of the record that the impugned product is a part of Shutter and will be classifiable under sub-heading 7308.90 which specifically refers to Shutters. The product will not be classifiable as Section of Iron and Steel falling under Heading 7216 of the Tariff. We also find that the show cause notice Was issued on 13.3.92 for demanding the duty for the period from 1.4.88 to 31.8.91. The appellants have submitted in their memorandum of appeal that they had furnished the description of goods in their classification list which was duly approved by the Asst. Commissioner and as such extended period of limitation will not be attracted. We find from the impugned order that they had declared their product as Metal Section (Shutter Lath Section) in their classification list. As they have clearly mentioned in their classification list that the impugned product is meant for Shutter it cannot be claimed by the Revenue that there was a mis-declaration by them in their classification list. It has also been consistently decided that when the classification list has been filed and approved by the Department the charge of suppression or mis-declaration cannot be made by the Department. The demand is, therefore, hit by time limit as specified in Section 1lA of the Act. As the demand is dropped by us the penalty is also set aside. The appeal filed by the appellants is allowed.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
