2000 (11) TMI 911 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved:
- Classification of Transfer Trolleys under Heading 8455.00 or Heading 86.06
- Point of limitation regarding the demand raised on 21-12-1995 for the period from August 1992 to March 1993

Detailed Analysis:
1. Classification of Transfer Trolleys:
The primary issue in the appeal was the classification of Transfer Trolleys manufactured by the appellants. The appellants argued that the Trolleys should be classified under Heading 8455.00, while the Revenue contended that the correct classification was under Heading 86.06. The appellants had filed a Classification List effective from 1-3-1992, describing the goods as related to Metal Rolling Mills and Rolls thereof, which was duly approved by the Assistant Commissioner. The Revenue claimed that the appellants provided incorrect information in the Classification List, justifying the invocation of a longer period of limitation.

2. Point of Limitation:
The demand in question was raised on 21-12-1995 for the period from August 1992 to March 1993. The appellants argued that the show cause notice was beyond the normal period of limitation as per Section 11A. The Revenue contended that the longer period of limitation was justified due to alleged mis-declaration and suppression by the appellants. The Commissioner observed that the appellants intentionally provided incorrect information to escape duty payment, leading to the invocation of the proviso to Section 11A.

3. Decision and Analysis:
After considering both sides' submissions, the Tribunal found that the demand of duty was barred by limitation. The Tribunal noted that the Classification List approval and assessment by the Central Excise Officers were not disputed, and the objections raised by the Revenue could have been addressed earlier. The Tribunal highlighted that the Assistant Commissioner should have conducted necessary verifications before approving the Classification List. Without determining the correct classification, the Tribunal concluded that the demand was time-barred, setting aside the impugned order and granting relief to the appellants.

In conclusion, the judgment focused on the classification of Transfer Trolleys and the point of limitation regarding the demand for duty. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of proper verification before approving classification lists and held that the demand was barred by limitation due to the absence of evidence supporting suppression or misdeclaration by the appellants.