2000 (4) TMI 88 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Classification of "Alkyd Resins" under 3208.40 or 3907.50, Approval of classification lists, Payment of duty "under protest," Extended period for demand, Suppression of information, Liability to penalty.

Classification Dispute:
The appeal contested the classification of "Alkyd Resins" under either 3208.40 or 3907.50. The Revenue upheld classification under 3208.40, while the appellants claimed classification under 3907.50. The appellants argued that the weight of solvents in the goods was less than 50%, making classification under 3907.50 appropriate. They also emphasized that end use should not dictate classification, citing relevant case law.

Approval of Classification Lists and Payment of Duty:
The appellants submitted classification lists under 3907.50, which were approved by the department in 1988 and 1989. They contended that the duty was paid "under protest" in 1993, and the department did not review the approved classification lists or reopen the issue of classification. The tribunal found that the classification decisions were indeed approved, and the duty was paid under protest in 1993.

Extended Period for Demand:
The tribunal noted that the duty demand for the period beyond five years from the date of the show cause notice was illegal. The order-in-original erred in confirming duty for the period extending beyond the five-year period.

Suppression of Information and Liability to Penalty:
The department argued that the appellants suppressed crucial information regarding the composition and end use of the product, justifying the imposition of penalties. The tribunal found that the appellants had indeed suppressed relevant information in their approved classification lists, leading to incorrect classification and the evasion of duty, establishing liability for penalties.

Conclusion:
The tribunal upheld the duty demand for the period within five years from the show cause notice but quashed the demand for the period exceeding five years. The order-in-original was upheld except for this aspect. The appeal was allowed partially based on the detailed analysis and findings provided by the tribunal.