Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2014 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (6) TMI 383 - CESTAT KOLKATADemand of differential duty - Classification of goods - manufacture of Rolls, Pusher, Ejector, Speed Increaser, Roller Table, Cold Shear, Pinch Roll etc. and also parts of Rolling Mills. - Chapter Sub-heading 8455.10 or under Chapter Sub-heading 8455.90 of CETA, 1985 - Bar of limitation - It is alleged that the Appellant did not declare the manufactured goods as ‘parts’, but cleared the same declaring as ‘for use’ in the Rolling mills - Held that:- Appellants has not seriously disputed the classification of the aforesaid items under Chapter Sub-heading 8455.90 as ‘parts’, before us. Thus, following the decision of this Tribunal in Simplex Engg.& Foundry’s case (2004 (8) TMI 296 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI), we hold that the items in dispute merit classification under Chapter sub-heading 8455.90. - Decided against the assessee. Extended period of limitation - Held that:- There is no dispute that the declaration had been filed under Rule 173B of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944, and duly acknowledged by the Department. But, no action had been initiated against the Appellants for recovery of the differential duty due to wrong classification of the items mentioned in the said declaration within normal period as prescribed under Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944. There is no merit in the allegation of the Department that lesser duty had been paid by the Appellant resorting to suppression or mis-declaration of facts. - Following decision of Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Others reported in [1988 (5) TMI 39 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] - demand beyond the normal period of limitation is not sustainable - Decided in favour of assessee.
|