Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2023 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (8) TMI 895 - CESTAT KOLKATAMethod of Valuation - Section 4A of Central Excise Act, 1944 or Section 4 of the CEA, 1944 - import of Lead Acid Electric Accumulators/Storage Batteries falling under CET 850710.00 during the period April 2006-2010 - suppression of facts - invocation of extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The Appellant has declared the CET of the imported Batteries as 850710.00. Once he declares the CET and the same is not disputed by the Department, it is for the Customs Officials to go through the statutory provisions and correctly assess the CVD payable. At that particular point of time, in respect of all the 39 Bills of Entry, the Customs officials have assessed the Bills of Entry by charging the CVD as per Section 4. There is nothing to suggest that the Appellant has mis-declared either the nomenclature of the goods or the Tariff heading of the goods which would have lead the Customs officials to interpret any erroneous way to charge the CVD under Section 4 instead of under Section 4A. The case law cited by the Learned AR deals with the issue as to how the Battery is required to be assessed at the time of imports. Neither both the sides nor this Bench has any other view. The Batteries are required to be classified under Section 4A only. However, it is seen that in that case the Bench has not gone into the aspect of limitation since there was no pleading by the Appellant on this count. In the present case, the Appellant is not disputing the fact that the Batteries are required to be assessed under Section 4A. He is confining his argument only on account of limitation. There are no suppression on the part of the Appellant which is required to be proved by the Department so as to invoke the extended period - the impugned order is required to be set aside on account of limitation alone. Appeal allowed.
|