2002 (1) TMI 109 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against the order-in-appeal affirming additional duty of customs.
2. Classification of imported goods and exemption notification.
3. Short levy of customs duty and subsequent demand-cum-show cause notice.
4. Contesting the duty liability and the ground of limitation for duty demand.
5. Interpretation of the relevant date for determining the limitation period.
6. Validity of the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals).

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the order-in-appeal affirming the additional duty of customs imposed on the appellants. The facts were not in dispute, where the appellants imported brass scrap classified under Tariff Heading 7404.10 of the CETA, claiming exemption under Notification No. 67/97 for payment of CVD. However, it was later revealed that they were not entitled to the exemption, resulting in a short levy of customs duty, which was affirmed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals).

2. The appellants imported goods under a specific tariff heading and claimed exemption under a notification, which was later found to be not applicable. The assessment was initially provisional, allowing clearance on payment of customs duty and submission of an end use bond with a bank guarantee. The subsequent revelation of ineligibility for the exemption led to the short levy of duty, prompting the issuance of a demand-cum-show cause notice.

3. The key contention raised was regarding the duty liability, which the appellants did not contest. The only challenge was on the grounds of the duty demand being time-barred. The argument was based on the date of payment of duty by the appellants compared to the issuance date of the show cause notice for recovery of the short payment.

4. The interpretation of the relevant date for determining the limitation period was crucial in deciding the time-barred issue. The Commissioner rejected the plea of limitation, stating that the assessment was provisional and made final upon the cancellation of the bond and bank guarantee. The date of cancellation was considered as the relevant date for calculating the limitation period under the Customs Act, making the demand notice timely.

5. The findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the limitation period were not contested during the appeal. The Tribunal upheld the impugned order, emphasizing that the demand was raised within the statutory period of six months from the date of cancellation of the bond and bank guarantee. No other grounds were presented to challenge the validity of the Commissioner's order.

6. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the order-in-appeal of the Commissioner, dismissing the appeal due to lack of merit. The detailed analysis of the duty liability, exemption notification, short levy, and the interpretation of the limitation period provided a comprehensive understanding of the case, leading to the affirmation of the Commissioner's decision.