2005 (1) TMI 580 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved: Classification of goods under Chapter Heading 9027.50 u/s 9027.10, demand of differential duty, penalty, and confiscation of goods.

Classification Issue: The appellant imported Infrared-Gas Analyzer classified under Chapter Heading 9027.50, but the Revenue proposed reclassification under 9027.10. The appellant argued that 9027.50 was more specific and had been used previously by the Department. The lower authorities reclassified the item under 9027.10, demanded differential duty, ordered confiscation, and imposed a penalty. The Commissioner (A) upheld the reclassification but set aside the penalty. The Tribunal found that the Department had finalized the assessment under 9027.50 without challenging it through Section 129D, making the demand unsustainable. Citing the case of Priya Blue Industries Ltd. v. CC, the Tribunal allowed the appeal with consequential relief.

Legal Points Raised:
1. The appellant argued that issuing a show cause notice for reclassification of goods already cleared amounts to reopening assessment, which should have been challenged through Section 129D appeal instead.
2. The appellant relied on the decision in M/s. Wipro Ltd. v. CC, Chennai regarding classification issues.
3. The Tribunal noted that the assessment under 9027.50 was not challenged through Section 129D, making the demand unsustainable as per the precedent set by Priya Blue Industries Ltd. v. CC.

Decision: The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding the demand for differential duty unsustainable due to the failure to challenge the original assessment under 9027.50 through Section 129D appeal. The Tribunal cited the case law to support its decision and granted consequential relief to the appellant.