TMI Blog2000 (3) TMI 868X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... position of penalty in this case. 2. Appellants were carrying out rubberisation work of road wheels and track pins/blocks of the battle tanks and supplying to M/s. India Forege Ltd. for ultimate despatch to the Defence Department. They were regularly filing the classification list and the same activity was accepted for classification under T.I. 68. After the introduction of the new tariff, the classification was approved under Chapter Heading 40.17. However, after the visit of audit party to the appellants factory, the department took the view that the goods are required to be reclassified under chapter heading 87.10 with higher rate of duty. Initially, the show cause notice was issued on 25-4-88 for a demand of Rs. 5,25,016/-. Same was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the invoice has been drawn for the Defence Department and they have been mentioned as road wheels . Partly, there has been a lapse on the part of the assessing officer himself and it cannot be taken to be suppression. As such, I am of the view that although the classification would most appropriately be under heading 87.10 the extended period of Section 11A cannot be invoked and the demand has to be limited to a period of six months. 5. Arguing for the appellants, ld. Counsel Shri K.R. Natarajan submits that in terms of impugned order itself, it is very clear that the Commissioner has accepted appellants plea that department was aware of the description of the goods in the approved classification and the Assessing Officer himself ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of demands for six months prior to the date of issue of show cause notice in the present case as the Commissioner has clearly given a finding that there was an approved classification list under 4017 and department subsequently issued notice time and again for revising the classification under Chapter 87.10. The Commissioner in the extracted portion of the order above, clearly has come to the conclusion that there has been a lapse on the part of the assessing officer himself and hence larger period is not invokable and on this ground has restricted demand to 6 months period prior to the issue of show cause notice. The position of law prior to the Larger Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of CCE v. Cotspun Ltd. was that demand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
