9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 188X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he learned adjudicating authority has classified the VGA card/box/TV Tuner imported by the appellant falling under CTH 8528 71 00 as reception apparatus for television not designed to incorporate video display or screen as against the claim of the appellant that the same falls under CTH 8473 30 99 as parts/accessories of the computer. Consequently, he has confirmed a duty demand amounting to Rs. 1,73,85,081/- by invoking the extended period of time under the provisions of Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 along with interest thereon under Section 28AB. He has also ordered confiscation of the goods valued at Rs. 15,10,880/- seized on 22-1-2011 with an option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 4 lakhs. He has imposed a penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... larified by the Board that the TV tuners both internal and external are more appropriately classifiable under CTH 8528 71 00, the show cause notice dated 20-7-2011 was issued to the appellant in the instant case invoking the extended period whereas the period of demand pertains to 2005-06 to 2010-11 (up to 5-1-2011). Since the show cause notice has been issued after lapse of more than six months from the date of importation, the impugned demands are time-barred and accordingly they are not sustainable. From the Board's Circular, it is evident that divergent practices were in existence with regard to the classification of the goods under import and one of the classifications adopted by the department was CTH 8473. 3.1 The learned Couns ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court in the case of Northern Plastics Ltd. v. Collector of Customs & Central Excise - (2001) 1 SCC 545 = 1999 (113) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) in support of the above contention. He further relies on the Hon'ble Apex Court's decision in the case of Commissioner of Trade Tax v. Kartos International - 2011 (268) E.L.T. 289 (S.C.) wherein it was inter alia held that classification cannot be made on scientific and technical meaning of the product and it is only common parlance meaning of term which should be taken into consideration for determination of the tax liability. In the present case, in the common trade parlance, the product is known as accessory of a computer and, therefore, the correct classification of the impugned goods are under CTH 8473 30 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the date of import of the impugned goods, and has been issued beyond the normal period of limitation. Therefore, the first question for decision is whether extended period could be invoked in the present case at all. 6.1 There is no dispute that the appellant had been regularly importing these goods for a long period of time and has been claiming classification under CTH 8473 30 99 and the department has also accepted the said position. The appellant has claimed in its reply to the show cause notice that the goods were subjected to first check before they were finally assessed and, therefore, the department was fully aware of the nature of the product imported. Therefore, the question of invoking the extended period of time would ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
