1995 (1) TMI 155 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Classification of Tomato Puree under sub-heading 2001.10 or 2001.90, sustainability of demand confirmed by invoking extended period under proviso to Section 11A.

In this case, the appellants, engaged in the manufacture of Tomato Puree, filed a declaration intending to avail benefits under specific notifications. The Collector alleged misdeclaration and issued a show cause notice for recovery of duty and imposition of penalty. The Collector held the product as classifiable under sub-heading 2001.10, imposing duty and penalty. The appellants contended that the product should be classified under sub-heading 2001.90, not 2001.10, citing a previous Tribunal order. They argued against the extended period demand, claiming it was time-barred due to correct declaration and information provided earlier.

The main points for consideration were whether Tomato Puree in 35 Litre containers should be classified under sub-heading 2001.10 or 2001.90, and if the demand confirmed by invoking the extended period was valid. The Tribunal, following a previous order, ruled that the product in 35 Litre containers was correctly classifiable under sub-heading 2001.90, not 2001.10. Regarding the extended period demand, the appellants' correct declaration and information provided earlier led the Tribunal to find the charge of suppression of facts unsustainable. The Tribunal referenced a Supreme Court judgment to support their decision, stating that the demand issued for the period in question was time-barred.

Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed based on the classification of Tomato Puree and the sustainability of the demand confirmed by invoking the extended period under proviso to Section 11A.