9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 815X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n for rectification of mistake was preferred to bring to the knowledge of the Bench that the appellant had argued and prayed for setting aside the demands on grounds of limitation, which was not considered by the Bench while passing the final order dated 15.09.2017. This application of ROM was heard by the Bench and by Miscellaneous Order No. 30310/2018, dated 30.07.2018 held that there is indeed an error in the final order, accordingly the appeal was listed for disposal for hearing both sides on the question of limitation. 2. Ld. Counsel submits that appellant had in fact in the classification list filed before the authorities w.e.f. September 2008, had changed the classification and informed to the department in the monthly returns filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of final products of crude palm stearin from CETA 3823 1900 to 1515 9090. We also notice that by a letter dated 03.12.2008, Superintendent of Central Excise, Kakinada noted the change in classification sought in ER-1 return for September and October 2008 and directed the appellant to reclassify the product under 3823 1111 or 3823 11 12 or 3823 11 19 as the case may be and pay the differential duty. To this letter, appellant replied by his letter dated 12.01.2009 indicating therein why they changed the classification and justified that they are eligible for the benefit of nil duty under chapter 15.11 for the benefit of notification. We find that no other correspondence was entered by the department subsequent to these two letters and di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the appellants could have entertained a bona fide belief as to the classification of the product RBD Palm Stearin will be covered under Chapter 15, seems to be correct as during the relevant period, various decisions of the Tribunal indicated that the classification of RBD palm stearin is under Chapter 15. We find that the Apex Court in the decision of Jocil Ltd., reversed the said view and the said judgment was delivered by Apex Court on 15.12.2010. In our view, till 15.12.2010, these appellants could have entertained a bona fide belief that there product merits classification under Chapter 15 hence, in our view, the plea of limitation as raised by the appellant has to be answered in their favour." 5. In view of the foregoing in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
