Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2014 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (4) TMI 98 - AT - Central ExciseClassification of goods - Bleached Leno Gauze Fabric - Classification under Chapter Heading 58.03 or under CETH 52.07 - Advalorem rate of duty - Bar of limitation - Penalty - Held that:- Tribunal has held in the appellant’s own case in [2009 (2) TMI 290 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD], that ‘Bleached Leno Gauze Fabric’, manufactured by the appellant is correctly held to be classifiable under Chapter heading 58.03 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Therefore, the main appellant was not eligible to clear said ‘Bleached Leno Gauze Fabric’ under compounded levy scheme as held by the adjudicating authority. Extended period of limitation - Held that:- Evidences collected by the investigation make it evident that main appellant was changing the description of bleached fabrics as ‘Bleached Mosquito Net Fabrics’ when orders were placed on them by the buyers for ‘Bleached Leno Gauze Fabric’ Even if there was a confusion in the mind of the main appellant regarding classification of ‘Leno Gauze Fabrics’ but by changing the description of goods in the selling documents to ‘Bleached Mosquito Net Fabrics’ makes the intention of the main appellant clear for evading Central Excise Duty. This is further fortified by the fact that main appellant was also paying central Excise duty with respect to certain clearances of ‘Bleached Leno Gauze’ fabrics under 58.03. Such a mis-declaration on the part of the appellant could not be detected from the classification declarations, copies of invoices and monthly returns filed by the appellant in compliance to the provisions of central excise law and procedures. We, therefore, hold that this is clear case of intentional evasion of duty on the part of the appellant willfully mistaking/suppressing the facts, warranting recovery of duty under proviso to sub-section (1) of section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Therefore, the demand of duty is not time barred and extended period has been correctly invoked in these proceedings while confirming the demand - Decided against the assessee.
|