9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (6) TMI 194X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bsp; 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the Respondents are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods viz.Tea Sorting Machine, Tea Extractor Machine and parts thereof. They had classified the same under Heading No.84.33 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 attracting nil rate of duty. They also claimed the benefit under different SSI exemption notifications. The Officers of DGCEI working on intelligence made a case against the Respondents on the ground that the goods in question were classified as excisable goods. However, they wrongly availed the benefit of SSI exemption notifications. Accordingly, show cause notices were issued for recovery of duty by classifying the products under Heading 84.38 not under 84.33. There was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y objection, so far as the approved Classification List effective from 01.04.94 was concerned. The contention of the learned Consultant is that their produce is an agricultural produce. The contention is that the agricultural produce is not defined under the Central Excise provisions. However, vide the Notification No.08/2004-ST dated 09.07.04, agricultural produce had been defined which included tea. Therefore, tea is an agricultural produce and the goods manufactured by them had rightly been classified under 84.33. 6. We have considered the submissions and perused the records. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) found in his Order as under:- 4. I have carefully gone through the case records and appellant s as well as respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was held to be classifiable under a different heading/sub-heading. The Hon ble Tribunal as well as the Apex Court have consistently held the view that when classification lists are filed and approved allegation of suppression or willful mis-statement in order to invoke extended period for demand is not sustainable. This view is confirmed by the following case laws: (i) Bharat Carbon and Ribbon Mfg. Co. Ltd [2005(186)ELT 0491(T)] (ii) Acon s Construction Products Ltd. [2005 (184) ELT 120(SC) (iii) Graver & Weil (l) Ltd. [2004 (174) ELT 0487 (T)] (iv) Sapana Polyweave Pvt. Ltd. [2003(151) EIT A83(SC)] 5. The review order also held that there is no estoppel in the matter of taxation. I agree with the Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
