Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2021 (10) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2021 (10) TMI 231 - AT - Central Excise


Issues Involved:
1. Classification of Autoclaves under Central Excise Tariff.
2. Classification of Glass Bead Sterilizer, Steam Clave, and Hot Air Sterilizer under Central Excise Tariff.
3. Invocation of the extended period of limitation under Section 11A for raising the demand and imposition of penalty under Section 11AC.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of Autoclaves:
The appellant classified Autoclaves under Central Excise Tariff Heading 9018.00 (up to February 2005) and 90184900 (from March 2005), claiming them as medical equipment. The Revenue argued that these should be classified under Heading 841910 (up to February 2005) and 84192010 (from March 2005) as sterilizing equipment. The Tribunal noted that the Harmonized System of Nomenclature (HSN) includes sterilizers under Heading 8419, covering medical, surgical, or laboratory sterilizers. The Tribunal concluded that Autoclaves, being sterilizing equipment, fall under Heading 8419 as asserted by the Revenue.

2. Classification of Glass Bead Sterilizer, Steam Clave, and Hot Air Sterilizer:
Similar to the Autoclaves, the appellant classified these items under Heading 9018, while the Revenue classified them under Heading 8419. The Tribunal referred to the HSN explanatory notes, which include sterilizers used in medical or dental settings under Heading 8419. The Tribunal determined that these items are not medical equipment but sterilizing equipment and should be classified under Heading 8419.

3. Invocation of the Extended Period of Limitation:
The Tribunal examined the invocation of the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A. The show cause notice alleged suppression of facts by the appellant. However, the appellant provided evidence of a declaration made under Rule 173B, acknowledged by the department, and argued that the excise returns format did not require detailed product declarations. The Tribunal found the allegation of suppression unfounded and noted that the other elements (fraud, collusion, willful mis-statement) were not alleged. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the extended period of limitation could not be invoked, and the demand for the extended period was set aside.

Penalty Under Section 11AC:
Since the elements required for imposing a penalty under Section 11AC are the same as those for invoking the extended period of limitation, the Tribunal found no basis for the penalty. The penalty under Section 11AC was set aside.

Conclusion:
The appeal was partly allowed, upholding the demand and interest within the normal period of limitation but setting aside the demand for the extended period. The penalty imposed under Section 11AC was also set aside. The Tribunal provided consequential relief to the appellant as indicated.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates