2005 (2) TMI 617 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Classification of Sorbitol under Chapter Heading 29.05 or 3823.00, Time limit for show cause notice, Invocability of proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 11A.

Classification Issue:
The case involved the classification of Sorbitol by the Revenue under Chapter Heading 3823.00, while the assessee contended it should be classified under Chapter Heading 2905.90. The Commissioner found no material to support the reclassification and upheld the classification under Chapter Heading 2905.90. The Tribunal analyzed technical aspects, including the manufacturing process, purity levels, and chemical composition of Sorbitol. It was argued that Sorbitol should be classified based on technical nomenclature rather than trade parlance. The Tribunal referred to HSN Notes, which indicated that solutions of Chapter 28 or 29 with solvents other than water are excluded from those chapters, supporting the classification under Chapter Heading 2905.90. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's grounds for reclassification, emphasizing the lack of evidence and expert opinion to support the change.

Time Limit and Proviso Issue:
The Tribunal also considered whether the show cause notice was within the time limit and if the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 11A was invocable. The Commissioner's order was found to be legal and proper, with no evidence presented by the Revenue to challenge it. The Tribunal cited a previous case where a similar matter was remanded for further examination, but in this instance, due to the absence of evidence and the similarity to the previous case, the order passed by the Commissioner was upheld. The Tribunal referenced judgments from other cases to support its decision, concluding that there was no merit in the Revenue's appeal, which was subsequently rejected.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues of classification, time limits for show cause notices, and the invocability of relevant legal provisions. The Tribunal's decision was based on a thorough examination of technical aspects, legal precedents, and the absence of evidence supporting the Revenue's position, ultimately upholding the Commissioner's order in favor of the assessee.