2012 (6) TMI 194 - AT - Central Excise

SSI exemption - denied - recovery of duty by classifying the products under Heading 84.38 not under 84.33 - Tea Sorting Machine, Tea Extractor Machine and parts thereof - lower adjudicating authority dropped the demands upheld by Commissioner (Appeals) - Held that - On perusal of SCN no such evidence is shown which was not available to the Assistant Commissioner to determine the classification otherwise and it also did not allege that material facts were suppressed by the respondents - The case records reflect that the department was made aware of classification and it was open to the department to change the classification if the product was held to be classifiable under a different heading/sub-heading - review order also held that there is no estoppel in the matter of taxation - classification accepted by the Assistant Commissioner cannot be challenged who is the proper officer under Central Excise Law to finalize classification - against revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Classification of goods under Chapter Heading 84.33, suppression of facts, misdeclaration/misclassification, benefit of SSI exemption notifications, imposition of penalties, extended period for demand, retrospective amendment in Section 11A of the Finance Act, 2002.

Classification of Goods under Chapter Heading 84.33:
The Respondents classified Tea Sorting Machine and Tea Extractor Machine under Heading No.84.33 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, attracting nil rate of duty and claiming SSI exemption notifications. The Revenue contended that the goods should be classified under 84.38 due to suppression of facts and misdeclaration. The Respondents argued that their classification list was approved by the competent authority, paying duty accordingly under Chapter Heading 84.33 since 01.04.94. They claimed tea as an agricultural produce, rightfully classified under 84.33.

Suppression of Facts and Misdeclaration/Misclassification:
The Revenue alleged suppression of facts and misdeclaration by the Respondents, leading to wrongly availing SSI exemption notifications. The Revenue argued that the goods should be classified under 84.38, not under 84.33. The lower Adjudicating Authority dropped the proceedings against the Respondents, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Revenue challenged this decision, claiming that the evidence showed misclassification and suppression of facts.

Extended Period for Demand and Retrospective Amendment in Section 11A:
The Review Order highlighted that the extended period for demand could be invoked if evidence not available earlier was presented, but no such evidence was specified. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the classification lists were filed and approved, making the allegation of suppression unsustainable. The judgment referenced various case laws supporting this view. It was also noted that there is no estoppel in taxation matters, allowing taxing authorities to change their views prospectively. The judgment upheld the lower authorities' findings, dismissing the Revenue's Appeals and the Respondents' Cross Objection.

This detailed analysis of the legal judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, KOLKATA involved issues related to the classification of goods under Chapter Heading 84.33, allegations of suppression of facts and misdeclaration/misclassification, the benefit of SSI exemption notifications, imposition of penalties, the extended period for demand, and the retrospective amendment in Section 11A of the Finance Act, 2002. The judgment emphasized the importance of approved classification lists, the absence of evidence for suppression, and the ability of taxing authorities to change views prospectively. Ultimately, the decision upheld the lower authorities' findings, dismissing the Revenue's Appeals and the Respondents' Cross Objection.