(A.K. Sikri and Rohinton Fali Nariman, JJ.)
M/s. Bhor Industries Ltd. ______________ Appellant
v.
Commnr. of Central Excise Mumbai ______ Respondent
Civil Appeal No(s). 3856/2006, decided on September 2, 2015
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. Though the dispute that initially started pertained to the classification of the product of the appellant/assessee herein viz. plastic PVC flexible sheeting exceeding thickness of 0.25 mm cleared in running length and in roll form, by the time proceedings had landed in this Court, the dispute of classification no more survives and this Court is only concerned with the issue as to whether respondent/revenue could invoke the extended period of limitation as per proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The period in question is February, 1990 to February, 1991 and show cause notice was issued on 28.2.1995. In the show cause notice it was alleged that the assessee had made misstatement to the effect that it would be clearing the goods at a higher rate i.e. as per the classification approved by the Revenue but it would doing so under protest, meaning thereby the assessee would be disputing the classification as approved by the Revenue. However, in spite thereof the goods were not cleared as per the classification approved by the Revenue but at a lower rate on the basis of classification which the assessee thought was the correct classification. Thus on the basis of the misstatement larger period of limitation was invoked. We find that action of the Commissioner on limitation has been upheld by the Tribunal as well after giving the detailed reasons.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and are of the view that the opinion of the Tribunal in this behalf is perfectly correct. We thus do not find any merit in this appeal.
3. The appeal is accordingly, dismissed.
———
