2005 (10) TMI 365 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Classification of goods under Chapter Heading 84.19 or 39.20, Invocation of extended period of limitation, Confiscation of goods for non-accountal under Rule 173Q

Classification of Goods:
The dispute arises from the classification of corrugated PVC sheets and plain sheets by the Commissioner under Chapter Heading 84.19 as Media Fills, while the Revenue contends they should be classified under Chapter Heading 39.20. The Commissioner considered the technical aspects and the end-use of the goods, concluding that they are Media Fills under Chapter 84. However, the Tribunal disagreed, stating that the sheets were removed as sheets and not as assembled Media Fills, thereby classifying them under Chapter 39. The Tribunal also noted the Commissioner's oversight of previous Tribunal decisions on classification.

Invocation of Extended Period of Limitation:
Regarding the extended period of limitation, the Revenue argued that the respondents misdeclared the goods as Media Fills to evade duty, justifying the invocation of a longer period. However, the Commissioner found no suppression or misrepresentation, limiting the demand to six months. The Tribunal disagreed, stating that the respondents' belief in misclassification based on a competitor's practice was not bona fide, leading to the invocation of the extended period of limitation.

Confiscation of Goods for Non-Accountal:
The Commissioner confiscated PVC sheets for non-accountal under Rule 173Q, as the goods were not properly recorded in statutory documents. The Tribunal upheld the confiscation, noting the appellants' failure to challenge this aspect in their cross-objections. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of maintaining accurate records to avoid duty evasion and upheld the confiscation of the goods.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's classification decision, allowing the Department's appeal. The Tribunal also upheld the invocation of the extended period of limitation due to the respondents' misdeclaration of goods. Additionally, the Tribunal allowed the Department's appeal regarding the confiscation of goods for non-accountal, rejecting the cross-objections filed by the respondents.

---