ORDER
Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)
1. In this case, a duty demand of Rs. 87,875.43 P has been confirmed against the appellants herein, as a result of denial of the benefit of concessional rate of duty in terms of Notification 63/87 dated 1-3-1987 on the ground that Sl. No. 2 of the Table to the Notification extends benefit to textile fabrics coated, impregnated, covered or laminated with base fabrics of cotton of Chapter 52 while the assessees had used knitted cotton fabrics of Chapter 60 as their base fabrics. The extended period of limitation has been applied for suppression of the fact of use of Chapter 60 base fabric.
2. We have heard Shri Rajesh Chhibber, learned Advocate who contends that the demand is barred by limitation since in the classification lists during the relevant period, the assessees had declared not only that they were using base fabric of cotton under Chapter 52 but also ‘others’ and that the raw material register showing knitted fabrics under Chapter 60 were submitted to the Department from time to time, resulting in sufficient disclosure of the base fabric material to the Department, and Shri Tilak learned DR who submits that the use of the expression ‘others’ in the classification lists refers to Tariff description of the final product under CET sub-heading 5903.19 and therefore, it cannot be said that the assessees had disclosed at any stage to the Department that they were using any base fabric other than those falling under the prescribed Chapter namely Chapter 52 and that there is nothing on record to show that the raw material registers were being verified by the Department.
3. We have carefully considered the submissions of both the sides. We see no force in the Counsel’s submission that the use of the expression ‘others’ in the classification list amounts to disclosure to the Department that the assessees were using not only base fabrics falling under Chapter 52 but also base fabrics falling under other Chapters. The learned DR is correct in his submission that the word ‘others’ in the classification list only gives the description of the appellants final product. Further there is nothing on record to substantiate the assessee’s contention of submission of raw material records/registers to the Department throughout the relevant period. Therefore, we agree with the Adjudicating authority that, there has been a mis-classification in the classification list with intent to wrongly avail the benefit of concessional rate of duty under the Notification which is not available to the appellants. In this view of the matter, we uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal.