- (1.) Shri Rajesh Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for appellant. Though called in revised, none appeared on behalf of respondent, hence we proceed to decide the matter after hearing, learned counsel for appellant.
(2.) Two substantial questions of law have been raised in this appeal, which read as under:- "(i)Whether the Appellate Tribunal i.e. CESTAT is justified in holding that the allegation of suppression with intent to evade payment of duty is not sustainable for the reason that the respondent preferred a letter dated 29.01.1996 to the department mentioning that the respondent is going to start manufacturing new product namely 'Propylene' which is classified under chapter 27 of the Act, 1985 knowing fully well that the purity of product in question is more than 90%; more preciously is above 99.5% v/v, therefore, it should be classified under chapter heading 29 (ii)Whether intimation of wrong and incorrect facts by filing the necessary declaration Under Rule 173 B of the Erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 claiming the classification of the product in question under chapter 27 would not come within a meaning of 'suppression' of material fact with the intent to evade payment of duty as defined Under Section 11 A of the Central Excise Act, 1944"
(3.) This is an appeal under Section 35-G of Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to Act, 1944) arising from judgment and order dated 11.8.2008 passed by Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal) in Excise Appeal No. E/3274/2004 (Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. CCE, Lucknow).;