Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2022 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (3) TMI 505 - AT - Central ExciseClassification of goods - Subscriber Call Recorder and Controller Attachment (popularly called STD-PCO) - to be classifiable under CETH No. 8517.00 and EPROMs was separately classified under 8524.90 or not - suppression of fact or not - Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- The issue on merits on the classification of goods is no longer under dispute for the reason that in the appellant own case the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ANJALEEM ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., AHMEDABAD [2006 (1) TMI 271 - SUPREME COURT] decided the matter against the appellant. Time Limitation - the commissioner (Appeals) rejected the claim on time bar submitted by the appellant before him on the ground that the issue of time bar was raised first time before the Commissioner (Appeals) - HELD THAT:- It is a settled law that issue of limitation can be raised at any stage, being a mixed question of law and facts. Therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) order on limitation is incorrect and illegal. Now, the issue on limitation is examined from the facts of this case. The appellant under bona fide belief have been claiming that STD-PCO and EPROMs are classifiable separately and EPROMs is under Exemption Notification No. 84/1989-CE dated 01.03.1989. The appellant have been filling the classification list wherein they have separately classified both the items and claim the exemption notification. Therefore, the entire facts were very much before the department - in the appellants own case though the matter was decided against them on merit by this tribunal in the case ANJALEEM ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., AHMEDABAD [2006 (1) TMI 271 - SUPREME COURT] but the tribunal considering the similar facts extended the benefit of time bar where it was held that where classification list has been approved, demand for duty based upon the revision in the classification could only be made from the date of the proposed change in the classification, the demand for the period within six months also cannot be sustained. As per above decision of the tribunal, the fact of the same is identical to the present case even on limitation also. Therefore, the entire demand which is beyond the normal period is not sustainable on time bar. The appeal is allowed with consequential relief on the ground of time bar only.
|