Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2015 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (4) TMI 1087 - AT - Central ExciseConcessional rate of duty as per the Notification No. 141/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986 - whether the appellant is not entitled to the concessional rate of duty prescribed in the above said notification as the base fabric used is falling under Chapter 60 and not under Chapter 52 as prescribed under the notification - Held that:- In the present case since the coated fabric manufactured by the appellant is not made of base fabric of Chapter 52, 54 or 55 therefore, is not classifiable either under Chapter sub-heading 5903.19 or 5903.29. In view of this undisputed fact the product in question is correctly classifiable under Chapter 5903.99 and therefore, correctly extended the benefit of Notification No. 141/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986 under Sr. No. 10 of the table and Notification No. 63/87, dated 1-3-1987 under Sr. No. 5 of the table appended thereto. Extended period of limitation invoked - Held that:- We observed that in the classification list the appellant admittedly mentioned “rate 6 per sq. mtr. plus the duty for the time being leviable on the base fabrics under Chapter 52, if not already paid”. From this mention it is clear that department is under belief that base fabric used by the appellant is falling under Chapter 52 whereas the appellant used the base fabric which is falling under Chapter 60, therefore, this is a clear misdeclaration of the fact. As regards to submission of ld. Counsel that stock was verified physically by the departmental officer, we are of the view that though the stock of the goods was verified but from the stock verification officer cannot ascertain whether the base fabric used in the product is falling under Chapter 52 or Chapter 60. Therefore, we do not agree with the submission of the ld. Counsel on this count. We, therefore, are of the view that there is clear suppression of facts and misdeclaration on the part of the appellant therefore, extended period was rightly invoked. during the period 1-3-1986 to 31-1-1989 the appellant has suppressed and misdeclared facts therefore, show cause notice for the said period can be issued up to five years. Only because show cause notice for the extended period was issued subsequently, nature of suppression and misdeclaration does not get extinguished. We, therefore, do not agree with this submission of the ld. Counsel. - Decided against assessee
|