2018 (9) TMI 1346 - AT - Central Excise

Classification of goods - Roop Amruta - Daant Pari - case of Revenue is that the said goods are classifiable under cosmetic and it was classified under Chapter 33 of the Central Excise Tariff Act - Extended period of limitation - Held that - The rate of duty under Chapter 30 as well as Chapter 35 is same. Further, the fact is also noted that the appellants are filing their ER-1 returns at the time of clearance of goods showing the classification under Chapter 30 of Central Excise Tariff Act and the same has been accepted by the Department at the time of assessing the returns. Extended period of limitation - Held that - As the search was conducted in the factory premises of the appellant on 28/03/2006 and goods were also seized on 28/03/2006 that the show cause notice was only issued on 16/03/2007. Thereafter, the show cause notice is highly barred by limitation as no malafide is attributable to the appellants - demand barred by limitation. Confiscation - redemption fine - Held that - The goods in question which have been seized, have not cleared from the factory and there is no malafide attributable against the appellants, therefore, the goods are not liable for confiscation, consequently, no redemption fine is imposable on account of seizure of the goods. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Classification of goods under Central Excise Tariff Act, extended period of limitation for demand of duty, acceptance of classification in ER-1 returns, malafide attributability for limitation, confiscation of seized goods, imposition of penalties and redemption fine.

Classification of Goods:
The appellants challenged the Revenue's classification of goods Roop Amruta and Daant Pari as cosmetic items under Chapter 33 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. The appellants contended that they had been consistently classifying the goods under Chapter 30 in their ER-1 returns, and the Department had accepted this classification at the time of assessing the returns. The Tribunal noted that the rate of duty under both Chapter 30 and Chapter 33 was the same. The Tribunal held that the demands made by the Revenue were barred by limitation as the show cause notice was issued after a significant delay from the date of seizure, with no malafide attributable to the appellants. Consequently, the demand of duty was deemed unsustainable, and penalties were set aside.

Extended Period of Limitation:
The appellants argued that the entire demand of duty was time-barred as the show cause notice was issued invoking the extended period of limitation for the period from August 2005 to March 2006 on July 22, 2010. They contended that the classification of goods was known to the Department as reflected in their ER-1 returns. The Tribunal agreed with the appellants, holding that the demands were indeed barred by limitation due to the significant delay in issuing the show cause notice without any malafide on the part of the appellants.

Confiscation of Seized Goods and Penalties:
The Revenue had seized the goods in question and issued a show cause notice demanding duty under Chapter 33 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. The Tribunal found that as the goods had not been cleared from the factory and there was no malafide attributable to the appellants, the goods were not liable for confiscation. Consequently, no redemption fine was imposable due to the seizure of the goods. The penalties imposed were set aside as the demands were held to be barred by limitation, and the duty demand was deemed unsustainable.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT ALLAHABAD allowed the appeals filed by the appellants, setting aside the demand of duty, penalties, and redemption fine. The Tribunal held that the demands were barred by limitation, and there was no malafide attributable to the appellants in the classification of goods under the Central Excise Tariff Act.