2023 (8) TMI 895 - AT - Central Excise

Method of Valuation - Section 4A of Central Excise Act, 1944 or Section 4 of the CEA, 1944 - import of Lead Acid Electric Accumulators/Storage Batteries falling under CET 850710.00 during the period April 2006-2010 - suppression of facts - invocation of extended period of limitation - HELD THAT - The Appellant has declared the CET of the imported Batteries as 850710.00. Once he declares the CET and the same is not disputed by the Department, it is for the Customs Officials to go through the statutory provisions and correctly assess the CVD payable. At that particular point of time, in respect of all the 39 Bills of Entry, the Customs officials have assessed the Bills of Entry by charging the CVD as per Section 4. There is nothing to suggest that the Appellant has mis-declared either the nomenclature of the goods or the Tariff heading of the goods which would have lead the Customs officials to interpret any erroneous way to charge the CVD under Section 4 instead of under Section 4A. The case law cited by the Learned AR deals with the issue as to how the Battery is required to be assessed at the time of imports. Neither both the sides nor this Bench has any other view. The Batteries are required to be classified under Section 4A only. However, it is seen that in that case the Bench has not gone into the aspect of limitation since there was no pleading by the Appellant on this count. In the present case, the Appellant is not disputing the fact that the Batteries are required to be assessed under Section 4A. He is confining his argument only on account of limitation. There are no suppression on the part of the Appellant which is required to be proved by the Department so as to invoke the extended period - the impugned order is required to be set aside on account of limitation alone. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
The issues involved are mis-declaration of imported goods leading to the incorrect assessment of countervailing duty (CVD) under Section 4 instead of Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the invocation of the extended period to confirm the duty.

Mis-declaration of Imported Goods:
The Appellant imported Lead Acid Electric Accumulators/Storage Batteries falling under CET 850710.00 during April 2006-2010. The Department concluded that the batteries are exigible to duty under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, instead of Section 4. Proceedings were initiated against the Appellant for mis-declaration and claiming the benefit of lower CVD. A demand of Rs.67,57,170/- was confirmed with interest and penalty.

Assessment of CVD under Section 4A:
The Appellant argued that the Customs officials should have assessed the batteries under Section 4A for CVD purposes as clarified by the Central Excise Tariff. The Appellant maintained that there was no suppression on their part to evade duties, as they correctly declared the CET of the imported goods. The Appellant contended that the Department erred in invoking the extended period to confirm the duty and requested the Order to be set aside on the grounds of limitation.

Judgment:
After hearing both sides and examining the Bills of Entry, it was observed that the Appellant had declared the correct CET of the imported batteries, which was not disputed by the Department. The Customs officials assessed the Bills of Entry by charging the CVD under Section 4, as per the Appellant's declaration. While it was acknowledged that the batteries should be classified under Section 4A, the focus of the argument was on the limitation issue. The Tribunal found no suppression by the Appellant to warrant the extended period for confirming the duty. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside solely on the basis of limitation.

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside on the grounds of limitation. The Appellant was granted consequential relief as per the law.