2015 (9) TMI 523 - SC - Central Excise

Extended period of limitation - assessee would be disputing the classification as approved by the Revenue. However, in spite thereof the goods were not cleared as per the classification approved by the Revenue but at a lower rate on the basis of classification which the assessee thought was the correct classification. Thus on the basis of the misstatement larger period of limitation was invoked. We find that action of the Commissioner on limitation has been upheld by the Tribunal as well after giving the detailed reasons. - Decision of tribunal 2006 (3) TMI 736 - CESTAT MUMBAI confirmed - Decided against the assessee.

Summary

Issues: Classification dispute, invocation of extended period of limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944

In this judgment, the Supreme Court addressed a dispute initially concerning the classification of a product, plastic PVC flexible sheeting, by the appellant/assessee. However, by the time the case reached the Court, the classification issue was resolved. The Court focused on whether the revenue could invoke the extended period of limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, for the period between February 1990 to February 1991. The revenue alleged that the assessee had made a misstatement regarding the classification of goods, intending to clear them at a higher rate approved by the Revenue but actually clearing them at a lower rate based on their own classification. The Commissioner invoked the extended period of limitation based on this misstatement, a decision upheld by the Tribunal with detailed reasons provided.

The Court carefully considered the arguments presented by both parties and concurred with the Tribunal's opinion on the matter. It found no merit in the appellant's appeal and consequently dismissed it. The judgment emphasizes the importance of adherence to classification regulations and the implications of misstatements in such matters.