Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2015 (11) TMI 315

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ved, clear the said products as per the approved classification list discharging the duty as per the classification list, cannot be charged with the allegation of mis- statement or suppression of facts to evade payment of duty. Further, it is noticed that the revenue authorities, on receipt of classification list, did not direct the appellant to go for the drawal of the samples and get the same tested in order to ascertain the correct classification of the product, during the relevant period. Having not done so, revenue authorities now cannot turnaround and allege that there was suppression, mis-statement on the part of appellant. There is nothing on record to show that during the relevant period, the job cards of the products in questio .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rate of duty. The show cause notice dated 02/02/1999 was issued to the appellant alleging that they were misclassifying the products in order to evade duty, allegations of suppression were also levelled against the appellant. The appellant contested the show cause notice on merits as well as on limitation. The adjudicating authority after following the due process of law did not agree with the contentions raised and confirmed the demands with interest and imposed penalties. 3. Learned Counsel, at the outset, submits that though they have a good case on merits, he would essentially argue on the limitation aspect. He would draw our attention to the fact that the appellants during the material period had filed classification list to the low .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t length by both sides and perused the records. 6. On perusal of records, we find that the appeal could be disposed of on the ground of limitation only. It is noticed that for the period in question in this appeal, appellant had filed classification list, classifying the products under chapter heading number 27.01. The said classification lists were approved by the authorities as per the provisions of Rule 173B of Central Excise Rules 1944. We find strong force in the contentions raised by the learned Counsel that the entire demand is hit by limitation for more than one reason. 6.1 Firstly, on perusal of the approved classification list as produced by the learned Counsel, indicates that appellant had, presented to the Department the c .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... pect of the said products, indicate that the correct classification of the product is under chapter 34. On perusal of the said job cards, we find that the said job cards were for the year 1998 while the demand in the show cause notice is for the period January 1994 to March 1995. There is nothing on record to show that during the relevant period, the job cards of the products in question were indicative of the classification under chapter 34. In any case, revenue having failed to indicate to the appellant assessee that the classification sought by them is unacceptable now cannot rely upon the job cards which were of latter period. It is settled law that the case of classification of a product, the revenue has to play a proactive role, which .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rt-levied or short-paid by suppression of fact or in contravention of any provision or rules but there should be wilful suppression. [Re : M/s. Easland Combines, Coimbatore v. The Collector of Central Excise, Coimbatore, C.A. No. 2693 of 2000 etc. decided on 13-1-2003]. By merely claiming it under heading 3926.90 it cannot be said that there was any wilful misstatement or suppression of fact. Hence, there was no justifiable ground for the Tribunal for invoking the first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 11A of the Act. 6.5 Above reproduced ratio squarely covers the issue in the case in hand. 6.6 As we have disposed of the appeal only on the ground of limitation, we are not recording any findings on various other submissions made .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates