1996 (7) TMI 286 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the demand is barred by limitation.
2. Whether the microprocessor trainers and prom programmers are classifiable under T.I. 33DD or under T.I. 68.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The appellants contended that they believed in good faith that their products were not computers, as similar products by another company were classified under T.I. 68. They also relied on an opinion from the Department of Electronics stating that the items in question were not considered computers and did not attract duty under T.I. 33DD. The tribunal acknowledged the appellants' genuine belief and noted a previous case where a similar product used for training purposes was not classified as a computer under T.I. 33DD. As there was doubt regarding the classification of the disputed items, the tribunal found no intention on the part of the appellants to evade duty, a crucial element for invoking the extended period of limitation. Consequently, the tribunal held that the duty demand was time-barred and set it aside.

Issue 2:
Given the finding that the duty demand was barred by limitation, the tribunal did not delve into the issue of classification regarding whether the microprocessor trainers and prom programmers should be categorized under T.I. 33DD or T.I. 68. As the demand was set aside on the grounds of limitation, no determination was made on the classification issue.

In conclusion, the tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal solely on the basis of the limitation issue, without addressing the classification matter.