9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 1319X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled the benefit of exemption Notification No. 24/2005 dated 01.03.20005 and the goods were allowed customs clearance as per the declaration. However, after considerable time, a Show Cause Notice was issued alleging that since the apparatus/ equipment imported by the Appellant is based on use of X-rays, the declaration made by the Appellant at the time of import is not proper and the Respondent re-classified the goods as falling under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 90221900 and would attract Basic Customs Duty of 7.5% as this heading is not covered by the Notification No 24/2005-Cus dated 01.03.2005. Accordingly, demand was raised for differential duty amounting to Rs. 72,296/- for the goods imported under two Bills of Entries Nos. 684781 da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .), where it is held that:- "14. The principle laid down in the judgments Supra was followed in Uniworth Textiles Limited vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur [ (2013) 9 SCC 753 = 2013 (288) E.L.T. 161 (S.C.)] which essentially is that with a view to invoke the extended period of limitation, there ought to be a positive act and not merely a failure to pay duty which is not on account of any fraud, collusion or willful misstatement or suppression of facts. The CESTAT, in the present case, has clearly held that the respondent had been importing the goods under CTH 1702, which the Learned Counsel for the parties agree, attracted the same rate of duty, as the goods imported and falling under CTH 1704 and held that the department was ver ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cult to believe that it had referred to the wrong exemption notification with any dishonest intention of evading proper payment of countervailing duty." 6. Learned Authorised Representative (AR) for the Revenue reiterated the findings in the impugned order and also drew our attention to the classification of goods. The Learned AR further submits the issue is covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the matter of Commissioner of Customs Vs. M/s Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd (2007 (7) TMI 52- Cestat, Chennai. 7. Heard Both Sides and perused the records. The first issue is regarding limitation, we find that there is no allegation of suppression of facts in the impugned orders. Appellant had made declaration as per the invoice/details pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
