TMI Blog1998 (11) TMI 267X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sonal penalty of Rs. 2.00 lakhs on the ground that Bearing Plate and Brake Block manufactured by the appellants were classifiable under Headings 7302.90 and 8607.00 respectively, whereas the appellants had cleared the same by treating the same as classifiable under Heading 7307.10 and as wholly exempt from duty under Notification No. 208/83. 2. The appellants contention is that prior to introduction of new Tariff Act, the goods were classifiable under Tariff Item 25(16) (1) and exempt from duty in terms of Notification No. 208/83-C.E., dated 1-8-1983. As the goods were wholly exempt from payment of duty, no Central Excise Licence was taken by them and no Central Excise formalities were observed and the Department also never raised any ob ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en subsequent to introduction of the new tariff in 1986. It was on these observations, Tribunal held that the appellants can be said to have been under a bona fide belief that Bearing Plate and Bearing Brake Block, even after the change in tariff with effect from 1-3-1986, were classifiable under Heading 73.07. The extended period was held not available to the Department. He, further, submits that said decision of Nagpur Engineering regarding non-availability of the extended period of limitation was followed by the Tribunal in the following cases :- (i) Bakshi Steels Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise reported in 1994 (71) E.L.T. 1013; (ii) Jaiswal Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Indore reported in 1997 (94) E.L.T. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... licence nor paid any duty and in this case, no declaration had been filed. Accordingly, he submits that the distinction sought to be drawn by the learned S.D.R. between the present case and the Nagpur Engineering s case is not relevant inasmuch as no declaration was found to have been filed by the appellants in DSM Industries case and in spite of that, it was held that the longer period was not invokable. 7. We have carefully considered the submission made by both sides and find a lot force in the learned Advocate s contention. In all the cases referred to by the learned Advocate, it has been held that there was a lot of confusion as to whether the block and plate have to be classifiable as castings or otherwise and the Department itself ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
