2003 (8) TMI 282 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Classification of "sound proof canopies" for electrical generators - Whether classified as prefabricated buildings or parts of electrical generators - Invocation of extended period of limitation for duty recovery.

Classification Issue:
The appeal dealt with the classification of "sound proof canopies" manufactured by the appellant for electrical generators. The appellant initially classified the goods under Heading 94.06 as prefabricated buildings, claiming exemption under Notification 55/94. However, a notice issued later sought to classify the goods under Heading 8503.00 as parts of electrical generators, leading to duty recovery. The Commissioner found the canopies were not prefabricated buildings but parts of generating sets, justifying the extended limitation period due to alleged non-disclosure by the appellant. The Tribunal analyzed Heading 85.03, concluding that the canopies did not qualify as identifiable parts of electric generating sets, as they merely provided acoustic insulation and were separately cleared. The Tribunal rejected the classification under Heading 85.03, thereby dismissing the duty recovery based on that classification.

Extended Period of Limitation Issue:
The notice invoked the extended period of limitation under Section 11A of the Act, alleging the appellant's intent to evade duty. The Tribunal scrutinized the appellant's declarations and interactions with the department. It found the appellant's declarations were clear and not convoluted, and the appellant had provided detailed information about the goods when queried by the department. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the extended period of limitation did not apply, barring the demand up to November 1999. As a result, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and ruling in favor of the appellant.

In summary, the Tribunal accepted the application to change the appellant's name, addressed the classification issue by rejecting the classification under Heading 85.03, and resolved the extended period of limitation issue by ruling against its invocation. The judgment favored the appellant, emphasizing the importance of accurate classification and transparent communication with the authorities to avoid duty recovery based on incorrect classifications or alleged non-disclosures.