Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2018 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (11) TMI 815 - AT - Central ExciseTime limitation - whether the demand for the differential duty for the period September 2008 to March 2009 is hit by limitation or otherwise? - Held that:- The appellant had indicated in the returns for September 2008 onwards that he is seeking the change in the classification of final products of crude palm stearin from CETA 3823 1900 to 1515 9090. We also notice that by a letter dated 03.12.2008, Superintendent of Central Excise, Kakinada noted the change in classification sought in ER-1 return for September and October 2008 and directed the appellant to reclassify the product under 3823 1111 or 3823 11 12 or 3823 11 19 as the case may be and pay the differential duty. Invocation of the extended period is unsustainable as department was aware and have sought clarification and got the same on the change of classification that affected the duty liability, secondly there is no dispute as to the fact that appellants were indicating in monthly returns that clearances were under nil rate of duty by availing the benefit of notification. This would mean that there is no suppression of fact with intent to evade duty. The appeal needs to be allowed on the ground of limitation.
|