2015 (3) TMI 1057 - AT - Customs

Classification of goods - Classification under Customs Tariff Heading 9018 90 19 or under Customs Tariff Heading 9027 80 90 - Bar of limitation - whether the period of six months, as was available prior to 8-4-2011 would be applicable or the period of one year, as was available in terms of the amended Section 28 would be applicable - Held that - Explanation clarifies that the any non-levy, short-levy, or erroneous refund before receiving the assent of the President in respect of Finance Bill , 2011 shall continue to be governed by the provisions of Section 28 as it stood immediately before receipt of the assent. The language of the said Explanation is unambiguous and clearly stating that all the demands which has arisen before the amended Section 28 of the Customs Act would be governed by the earlier Section 28. The unamended Section 28 had admittedly period of six months for raising the demand but in all the present cases, the demand has been raised beyond the period of six months. We are of the view that the demands are barred by limitation - impugned orders are set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Correct classification of imported products under Customs Tariff Heading.
2. Applicability of the period of limitation for issuing show cause notices under Section 28 of the Customs Act.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The appellant imported products classified under Customs Tariff Heading 9018 90 19 but Revenue contended that correct classification should be under Customs Tariff Heading 9027 80 90, attracting higher duty rates. Show cause notices were issued proposing a change in classification and confirmation of duty demands. The appellant did not contest the classification but argued that the demand was beyond the normal limitation period of six months. Revenue argued that the period of limitation was extended to one year post-amendment of Section 28 of the Customs Act.

2. The key issue was whether the period of six months, applicable before 8-4-2011, or the extended period of one year post-amendment of Section 28 would govern the present case. The Explanation 2 to Section 28(10) of the Customs Act clarified that any non-levy, short-levy, or erroneous refund before the Finance Bill, 2011 received the President's assent would be governed by the pre-amendment provisions of Section 28. The Tribunal found the language of the Explanation unambiguous, stating that demands arising before the amendment would be governed by the earlier Section 28 with a six-month limitation. As the demands in the present case were raised beyond six months, the Tribunal held them to be barred by limitation.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders, allowing the appeals with consequential relief to the appellants. The stay petition and appeals were disposed of accordingly.