1996 (10) TMI 268 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Classification of goods under the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 - Misdeclaration of goods - Extended period of limitation.

Classification of Goods:
The appeal involved the classification of goods by M/s Siemens Ltd., initially described as "control panels" by the appellants but classified by the Department as "motor starters." The dispute was whether the goods fell under Item No. 58 or Item No. 30B of the Tariff. The Deputy Collector of Central Excise and the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) had ruled in favor of classifying the goods as motor starters under Item No. 30B.

Arguments by Appellant:
The appellant argued that the goods were not motor starters but fell under Item No. 68 of the Tariff. They contended that there was no suppression of information and that the extended period of limitation was unjustified. Reference was made to previous tribunal decisions and documents to support their classification of the goods under Item No. 68.

Arguments by Respondent:
The respondent contended that the goods were correctly classified under Item No. 30B, citing the wide coverage of the Tariff Entry. They argued that the appellant had deliberately misdeclared the goods as HT and LT switch boards to evade excise duty. The respondent supported the invocation of the extended period of limitation due to the alleged suppression of facts.

Judgment on Classification:
The Tribunal analyzed the technical aspects of the goods in question, referring to definitions and functions of motor starters. The Deputy Collector's decision was upheld, emphasizing that the additional features of the goods did not exclude them from being classified as motor starters under Item No. 30B. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's argument that the goods were control panels and affirmed the classification under Item No. 30B.

Judgment on Misdeclaration and Limitation:
The Tribunal found that the appellant's description of the goods as switch boards was incorrect, and the approval based on this description was invalid. It was determined that there was suppression of information and fraudulent furnishing of incomplete details. Consequently, the extended period of limitation was deemed justified. The lower authorities' view was upheld, and the appeal was rejected.

Overall, the Tribunal concluded that the goods were correctly classified as motor starters under Item No. 30B of the Tariff and upheld the decision regarding the extended period of limitation due to misdeclaration and suppression of facts by M/s Siemens Ltd.