Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2010 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (6) TMI 446 - AT - Central ExciseDemand – limitation – Misdeclaration - misstatement by the appellants in the declaration which entitled the department to invoke the extended period of limitation - Tribunal in Hindustan Packaging Company Ltd. (1994 -TMI - 48728 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI) had held that the said product was classifiable under chapter 76 - in order to claim the classification under Chapter 76, it was necessary that the product should have been sandwiched between the coatings on either side. There was nothing to suggest in the Chapter 76 that aluminium foil backed with plastic only on one side would fall under the said chapter and that if it is coated by plastic on both sides, it would be under Chapter 39. The aluminium foil whether it is backed on one side or coated on both sides would fall under sub-heading 7607 and that was their reply dated1-9-99to letter dated13-7-1999. This apparently disclosed that the appellants consciously had taken the stand that irrespective of the fact that the product was coated on both sides with plastic, it would fall under chapter 76 and not under 39. If one reads the appellants submissions in the year 1996, it is apparent that there was no clear description in the said declaration. It was not for the appellants himself to decide whether the classification would be under 76 or 39 irrespective of the description of the product and on the contrary, it was necessary for the appellants to give detailed description of the product in the declaration. This is more so, in view of the self-assessment procedure. Non-declaration of the correct description could have helped the appellant in justifying their claim is a totally different issue. But the fact remains that correct description of the product was not revealed in the declaration. In those circumstances, certainly mis-statement can not be said to be un-intentional. - Decided against assessee Merely because one of the said Managers was authorised signatory to defence filed in the case, that would not be sufficient to construe that he was responsible for the mis-statement. Being so, the penalty against the Managers cannot be sustained. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant company fails whereas the appeals filed by the Managers succeed.
|