9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Classification of goods under different headings, imposition of duty, personal penalty, and interest; invocation of longer period of limitation.
The judgment dealt with the issue of classification of goods under different headings for the purpose of imposing duty. The appellants were served with a show cause notice raising demand of duty on the grounds that the goods cleared were not Material Handling Equipments under sub-heading 8428.00 but parts of Material Handling Equipments under heading 8431.00. The Commissioner confirmed the duty demand and imposed a personal penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, along with interest under Section 11AB. The appellants contended that the goods cleared in CKD condition should be classified as Conveyors under sub-heading 8428.00, citing previous Tribunal decisions supporting their argument. Regarding the issue of limitation, the appellants argued that the show cause notice issued beyond the normal period of limitation was unjustified. They maintained that all relevant information was provided to the Revenue, and there was no intent to evade duty payment. The appellants further contended that the imposition of penalty and interest under Sections 11AC and 11AB was illegal as the period in question predated the enforcement of these provisions. The Tribunal analyzed the submissions and previous decisions, concluding that goods cleared in CKD condition should be assessed as Conveyors falling under sub-heading 84.28, not as parts under heading 84.31. Citing precedents and the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System, the Tribunal found no merit in the Commissioner's reasoning and set aside the demand of duty, penalty, and interest. The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellants, with consequential reliefs granted. The issue of limitation was not addressed due to the appeal's merit-based success.
|
