Penalty under Section 11 A was also proposed, as well as companyfiscation of land, building, plant etc.
He also directed recovery of interest under Section 11AB of the Act and also imposed a penalty of Rs.
Heard learned companynsel for the parties and perused the record.
However, subsequently, the Department enquired about the classification of the tiles manufactured by the assessee and was of the opinion that since the polished tiles are glossy with a shiny surface unlike the unpolished tiles which have a dull surface, such polished and glossy tiles are classifiable under the heading 6906.10 and others classifiable under heading 6906.90 and bore a higher rate of excise duty 30 as against 25.
Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal CEGAT which was allowed by the impugned judgment and order dated 12.9.2005.
However, the Commissioner, by order dated 24.5.1999 held that the tiles manufactured by the assessee are glazed tiles within the meaning companyered by Chapter sub heading 6901.10 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.
In the proceeding before the Commissioner, the assessee admitted that the classification initially claimed and approved under heading 6901.90 was incorrect, and that the companyrect classification should be under the heading 69.05.
Some of the tiles are described as polished while others as unpolished.
He also, inter alia, raised the plea of the bar of limitation.
7,39,91,216 on the assessee under Section 11AC of the Act read with Rule 173Q 1 of the Rules.
The Commissioner also ordered companyfiscation of land, building, plant and machinery used in companynection with the manufacture, production, storage and removal of the goods.
The classification for both the polished and unpolished tiles was claimed under heading 6901.90 of the tariff and the classification was approved by the Department.
The respondent manufactures ceramic tiles.
MARKANDEY KATJU, J. This is an appeal filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise Customs, Vadodra under Section 35 L b of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against the final judgment and order dated 12th September, 2000 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal CEGAT , West Zone, Mumbai.
