9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (9) TMI 1004 - AT - Central ExciseClassification of goods - Classification under 8455.10 or under 8455.90 - Held that - Appellants has not seriously disputed the classification of the subject items under Chapter sub-heading 8455.90 as parts , before us. Thus, following the decision of this Tribunal in Simplex Engg. & Foundry s case (2004 (8) TMI 296 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI), we hold that the items in dispute merit classification under Chapter sub-heading 8455.90. Description of the goods declared by the appellant remains unchanged before and after restructuring of the Chapter Heading No. 84.55 of CETA, 1985 - No merit in the allegation of the Department that lesser duty had been paid by the appellant resorting to suppression or misdeclaration of facts. Consequently, we have no hesitation to hold that the demand notice issued for differential duty is barred by limitation. - Decision in the case of Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. Union of India & Others 1988 (5) TMI 39 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Classification of the manufactured goods under Central Excise Tariff sub-heading 8455.10 or 8455.90. 2. Applicability of the extended period of limitation for the demand notice issued. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Classification of Manufactured Goods: The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of various items including Rolls, Pusher, Ejector Speed Increaser, Roller Table, Cold Shear, Pinch Roll, etc., and parts of Rolling Mills. They classified these goods under Tariff sub-heading 8455.10 ("All goods other than parts") and parts under sub-heading 8455.90 of CETA, 1985. The Revenue contended that these items should be classified as "parts" under sub-heading 8455.90, attracting a higher duty rate of 15% instead of 10%. The Tribunal noted that the appellants had previously classified these products under sub-heading 8455.00 ("Metal Rolling Mills and Rolls therefor") before the 1995 Budget bifurcated it into sub-headings 8455.10 and 8455.90. The Tribunal referred to a prior decision in Simplex Engg. & Foundry Works (P) Ltd. v. Commr. Central Excise, Raipur, which clarified that for goods to be classified under sub-heading 8455.10, they must constitute a complete rolling mill, not just parts. The Tribunal concluded that the appellants failed to provide evidence that the items were cleared as a complete rolling mill, and thus, the items should be classified under sub-heading 8455.90 as "parts." 2. Applicability of Extended Period of Limitation: The appellants argued that the demand notice issued on 31-12-1998 for the period from 16-3-1995 to February 1997 was barred by limitation. They contended that they had filed a classification declaration under Rule 173B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and the Department was aware of the classification and description of the goods. The Tribunal found that there was no suppression or misdeclaration by the appellants as the description of the goods remained unchanged before and after the restructuring of the Chapter Heading. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. Union of India, which held that in the absence of suppression or misstatement, the normal period of limitation applies. The Tribunal concluded that the demand notice was barred by limitation as it was issued beyond the normal period prescribed under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Final Conclusions: (i) The goods mentioned at Annexure 'A' to the classification declaration filed by the appellants merit classification under Chapter sub-heading 8455.90 as "Parts." (ii) The demand is barred by limitation. Order: The appeal is allowed on the above terms.
|
