9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (6) TMI 383 - AT - Central ExciseDemand of differential duty - Classification of goods - manufacture of Rolls, Pusher, Ejector, Speed Increaser, Roller Table, Cold Shear, Pinch Roll etc. and also parts of Rolling Mills. - Chapter Sub-heading 8455.10 or under Chapter Sub-heading 8455.90 of CETA, 1985 - Bar of limitation - It is alleged that the Appellant did not declare the manufactured goods as parts , but cleared the same declaring as for use in the Rolling mills - Held that - Appellants has not seriously disputed the classification of the aforesaid 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. - Decided against the assessee. Extended period of limitation - Held that - There is no dispute that the declaration had been filed under Rule 173B of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944, and duly acknowledged by the Department. But, no action had been initiated against the Appellants for recovery of the differential duty due to wrong classification of the items mentioned in the said declaration within normal period as prescribed under Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944. There is no merit in the allegation of the Department that lesser duty had been paid by the Appellant resorting to suppression or mis-declaration of facts. - Following decision of Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Others reported in 1988 (5) TMI 39 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA - demand beyond the normal period of limitation is not sustainable - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Classification of the products under Chapter Sub-heading 8455.10 or 8455.90 of CETA, 1985. 2. Applicability of the extended period of limitation for the demand notice. Detailed Analysis: 1. Classification of the Products: The core issue revolves around whether the products manufactured by the appellants fall under Chapter Sub-heading 8455.10 as "All goods other than parts" or under Chapter Sub-heading 8455.90 as "Parts" of CETA, 1985. The appellants argued that their products, such as billet pusher, mill stand, roller table, etc., are independent machines used in metal rolling mills and should be classified under 8455.10. They contended that these items are machines with independent functions and should be treated as "Metal Rolling Mills and Rolls therefor." However, the Revenue's stance was that these items are parts of metal rolling mills and should be classified under 8455.90, attracting a higher duty rate of 15%. The Tribunal, referencing the case of Simplex Engg. & Foundry Works (P) Ltd. Vs. Commr. Central Excise, Raipur, determined that the items in question do not constitute a complete rolling mill and thus should be classified as parts under 8455.90. The Tribunal noted that the appellants did not provide evidence that the items were cleared as part of a complete metal rolling mill. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the classification of the items under Chapter Sub-heading 8455.90. 2. Applicability of Extended Period of Limitation: The second issue was whether the demand notice issued on 31.12.1998 for the period from 16.03.1995 to February 1997 was barred by limitation. The appellants argued that they had filed classification declarations under Rule 173B of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944, and these declarations were acknowledged by the Department without any action being taken within the normal period prescribed under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellants contended that there was no suppression or mis-declaration of facts as the description of the goods remained unchanged before and after the restructuring of Chapter Heading 84.55. The Tribunal found merit in the appellants' argument, noting that the Department had not initiated any action within the normal period despite being aware of the classification. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's judgment in Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Others, which held that in the absence of suppression or mis-statement of facts, the extended period of limitation could not be invoked. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the demand notice was barred by limitation. Conclusion: - The products mentioned at Annexure 'A' to the classification declaration filed by the appellants merit classification under Chapter Sub-heading 8455.90 as "Parts." - The demand notice for differential duty is barred by limitation. The appeal was allowed on these terms.
|
