9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 383X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... All goods other than parts' under chapter sub-heading 8455.10 attracting Central Excise duty @ 10% Adv. instead of 'parts' under chapter sub-heading 8455.90 attracting Central Excise duty @ 15% Adv. for the period from 16.03.1995 to February, 1997. It is alleged that the Appellant did not declare the manufactured goods as 'parts', but cleared the same declaring as 'for use' in the Rolling mills. This has resulted in mis-declaration by way of mis-classification of the goods with intent to evade payment of duty. The said notice, on adjudication, was confirmed. Hence the present appeal. 3. The ld. Advocate, Shri S. P. Majumdar, appearing for the Appellant, submitted that the Appellant had filed classification Declaration No.1/RV/96-97 dated 30.04.96 declaring the manufactured goods being Annexure A to the said Declaration, as falling under Chatper Sub-heading No.8455.10 and parts (Annexure B) to the said list under Chapter Sub-heading 8455.90 of CETA, 1985. The ld. Advocate further submitted that prior to the said declaration,all these products were classified under Chapter sub-heading 8455.00 of CETA, 1985. The ld. Advocate further submitted that the said Sub-heading, prior to 16.03 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edics Vs. CCEx., Noida : 2004 (173) ELT 337 (All.) ;(v)Sumeet Industries Ltd. Vs. CCEx., Surat : 2010 (259) ELT 152 (Tri.-Ahmd.) ; (vi) Alpha Lab Vs. CCEx., & Cus., Vadodara : 2009 (247) ELT 625 (Tri.-Ahmd.);(vii)Ranutrol Lifestyle Vs. CCEx., New Delhi : 2008 (232) ELT 272 (Tri.-Del.) ; (viii) Cipla Ltd. Vs. CCEx., Mumbai II : 2006 (205) ELT 652 (Tri.-Mumbai). 4. Per contra, the ld.A. R. for the Revenue, reiterated the findings of the ld. Commissioner and submitted that all these goods mentioned in Annexure A to the classification Declaration, were not cleared by the Appellants as a Rolling Mill, but were cleared from time to time as parts of rolling mills. It is his submissions that these items were cleared to various rolling mill for replacement of damaged or worn out parts and the Appellants could not establish through documentary evidences that the dispatch of individual machines was against the Purchase Order of a Metal Rolling Mill. On the issue of limitation, the ld. A.R. contended that even though, the goods were claimed as parts of Rolling Mill, appropriate duty was not paid and hence, extended period of limitation is applicable, and the Appellant were required to pay the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce, ought to be treated as 'Metal Rolling Mills and Rolls there for' and accordingly classifiable under Chapter Sub-heading 8455.10 as 'All goods other than parts attracting duty @10%. The contention of the Department on the other hand, is that all these parts might have been used in Rolling Mills, but the Appellants had not cleared the rolling mill as such and, hence, these items merit classification as 'Parts' under Chapter Sub-heading 8455.90 attracting duty @15%. Undisputedly, the Appellants had not placed any evidence that all these items were cleared by them against a Purchase Order for supply of Metal Rolling Mill and Rolls there for. It is their contention that since each of these items are itself capable of discharging function of machines independently and used in Metal Rolling Mills and Rolls there for, hence, should fall under the category of All goods other than parts under Chapter Sub-heading 8455.10. At the first blush, the said argument may sound attractive, but on a deeper analysis, would lead to a contrary result. This issue has been examined by this Tribunal in the case of Simplex Engg. & Foundry Works (P) Ltd. Vs. Commr. Central Excise, Raipur reported in 200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... strengthened when we refer to Heading 84.55 as given in H.S.N. which reads as under :- 84.55 Metal - Rolling Mills and Rolls therefore 8455.10 Tube Mills, Other rolling Mills, 8455.21 Hot or combination hot and cold 8455.22 Cold 8455.30 Rolls for rolling mills, 8455.90 Other Parts. 6.2 Thus different types of rolling mills are covered by separate sub-headings of HSN whereas in Central Excise Tariff there is only one sub-heading for all types of rolling mills. 8. We do not see any reason to depart or disagree with the aforesaid observation. Also, we find that the ld. Advocate for the Appellants has not seriously disputed the classification of the aforesaid items under Chapter Sub-heading 8455.90 as 'parts', before us. Thus, following the decision of this Tribunal in Simplex Engg.& Foundry's case (cited supra), we hold that the items in dispute merit classification under Chapter sub-heading 8455.90. 9. The ld. Advocate, however, vehemently argued on the issue of limitation. We find that the Appellants have been manufacturing these products earlier and the classification of the same were approved by the Department. After bifurcation of the Chapte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of excise has not been levied or short levied or short paid or erroneously refunded, the Central Excise Officer concerned may, within six months from the relevant date, serve notice on the person chargeable with that duty. This provision would clearly show that the period for which the demand could be made was only six months prior to the service of the notice. Now, in the present case, it has been found by the High Court and, in our opinion, rightly, that there was no suppression or mis-statement of facts or fraud by the appellant to which the alleged short levy or non-levy could be attributed. In fact, it is common ground that right from 1962 the appellant was filing classification lists containing the description of the items and showing them as liable to the payment of excise duty only under Item No. 26AA(ia) and these lists were accepted and approved by the excise authorities. In these circumstances, we fail to see how it could be said that the appellant was guilty of any suppression or mis-statement of facts or collusion or violation of the provisions of Central Excises Act as contemplated under the proviso to Section 11A of the said Act. In view of this, the period of limita ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
