9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (5) TMI 494 - AT - Central ExciseDemand of duty by classifying the products under Heading 84.38 not under 84.33 goods are to be classified as excisable and have wrongly availed the benefit of SSI exemption notifications - Revenue contended that Chapter Heading 84.33 does not cover Tea Sorting Machine and Tea Extractor Machine manufactured by assessee Held that - The Assistant Commissioner has rightly held that the classification list effective from 1.4.95 was duly approved by the proper officer and similar classification lists/declarations were filed by the respondent for the periods under question - the show-cause notice itself was silent as to whether the machineries were cleared for some purposes other than tea industry the assessee had been paying the duty under the same Chapter Heading by availing the benefit of Notification and the Department did not raise any objection, so far as the approved Classification List effective from 01.04.95 rightly held that when classification lists are filed and approved allegation of suppression or willful mis-statement in order to invoke extended period for demand is not sustainable - adjudicating authority cannot alter the classification accepted by the Assistant Commissioner who is the proper officer under Central Excise Law to finalize classification against revenue.
Issues: Classification of goods under Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985; Benefit under SSI exemption notifications; Allegations of suppression of facts and misdeclaration/misclassification; Approval of Classification List by competent authority; Definition of agricultural produce under Central Excise provisions; Estoppel in taxation matters; Retrospective amendment in Section 11A of the Finance Act, 2002.
Classification of goods under Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985: The case involved the classification of Tea Sorting Machine and Tea Extractor Machine under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Respondents had classified the goods under Heading No.84.33, attracting a nil rate of duty, and claimed benefits under SSI exemption notifications. The Revenue contended that the goods should be classified under Heading 84.38, alleging misdeclaration and misclassification. The lower Adjudicating Authority dropped the proceedings, leading to the Revenue's appeal. The Respondents argued that they had been clearing the goods at nil rate of duty under Chapter Heading 84.33, with their Classification List approved by the competent authority. Benefit under SSI exemption notifications: The Respondents claimed the benefit of SSI exemption notifications for the goods classified under Heading 84.33. They argued that they had been paying duty accordingly since 01.04.95, and that the goods were rightly classified under 84.33 as agricultural produce, including tea. The Respondents emphasized that their classification had been approved by the competent authority, and the Department had not raised any objections previously. Allegations of suppression of facts and misdeclaration/misclassification: The Revenue alleged suppression of facts and misdeclaration/misclassification by the Respondents, contending that the goods should be classified under Heading 84.38. The Revenue argued that the Assistant Commissioner had found evidence supporting the approved Classification Lists effective from various dates, and the Review Order emphasized the need to establish charges of suppression and misstatement for demanding duty under Section 11A. Approval of Classification List by competent authority: The Review Order highlighted that the Assistant Commissioner's acceptance of the classification should not be altered unless challenged before a higher legal forum and reversed. The Order emphasized that the Department could not change the classification accepted by the proper officer retrospectively, and the adjudicating authority should have considered the retrospective amendment in Section 11A of the Finance Act, 2002. Definition of agricultural produce under Central Excise provisions: The Respondents argued that their goods, including tea, were agricultural produce, and therefore rightly classified under Heading 84.33. They referenced Notification No.08/2004-ST defining agricultural produce to include tea, supporting their classification. Estoppel in taxation matters: The Review Order clarified that there is no estoppel in taxation matters, allowing taxing authorities to change their views for subsequent periods. However, such changes should be prospective and not retrospective, unless challenged and reversed by a higher legal forum. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal as lacking merit based on the cogent findings and lack of contradictory evidence. The Tribunal referred to previous cases with similar facts to support their decision, emphasizing the importance of concurrent findings and lack of reason to interfere.
|
