TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1011X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d of limitation - Held that: - no malafide intention can be attributed to such a view as to classification of goods - appellant had only declared the description of item declared as Tylosin Phosphate Powder on the Bill of Entry as per the documents received by them from the supplier and classified the Heading as understood by them, if Revenue had a dispute on the said CTH, they could have changed the same when the said Bills of Entry were filed for assessment by the Proper Officer. As there was no change in classification as claim by appellant, now revenue cannot say there was intention to evade CVD by way of mis-declaration - extended period of limitation not invocable. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - C/145/07 - A/861 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evenue authorities issued show-cause notice for demand of differential duty in respect of the Bills of Entry cleared during the period 21.06.2000 to 05.07.2005. Appellant contested the show-cause notice on merits as well as on limitation before the adjudicating authority. The adjudicating authority did not agree with the contentions raised on merits as also on limitation holding that there was an intentional mis-declaration on the part of importer-appellant, confirmed the demand raised along with interest and also imposed penalties. 3. Learned Counsel submits that he is arguing the matter on merits as well as on limitation. He submits that on merits the issue is very clear as in the case of Pfizer Ltd. 2004 (172) ELT 420 (Tri. Mum) s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the product from CTH 2309 to CTH 2941 seems inconsequential, as the demand in this case is in respect of Bills of Entry filed during the period 21.06.2000 to 05.07.2005 and cleared on final assessment by granting exemption from CVD as per Notification 21/2002-CE. The said assessment under CTH 2309 was not challenged by revenue. In the case in hand we find that the entire case of mis-declaration as held by the adjudicating authority is based upon the fact in appellant's own case, in one Bill of Entry the product was classified under CTH 2941 and the appeal was dismissed. It may be so, but appellant has made out a case for setting aside the demand in respect of the demand for the period 21.06.2000 to 05.07.2005 on limitation as they c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
