9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (9) TMI 935 - AT - Central Excise100% EOU - encyclopedia and dictionary, clearances made in the DTA during the period 2001-02 to 2004-05 and catalogue, brochures, Address/year book, folders printed sheets, etc. cleared in the DTA during the period from 2001-02 to 2003-04 - Invokation of extended period of limitation - declarations were made in the periodical returns - Held that - the Tariff heading 49.01, includes printed books, newspapers, brochures and other products of the printing industry, typed manuscripts and plans. We further observe that this Tribunal in Tata Press Ltd. Vs. CC 2001 (7) TMI 615 - CEGAT, MUMBAI , wherein the same tariff Entry No. 49.01 was interpreted in respect of predecessor Notification No. 25/95-Cus wherein the similar exemption was granted and it was held that the specification in exemption notification of books classifiable under Chapter- 49 clearly shows that it applies to books (as commonly understood) which fall for classification anywhere in chapter. Accordingly, we hold that the Id. Commissioner has erred in holding that encyclopedia and dictionaries will not fall in the Tariff heading No. 49.01 for the purpose of exemption under the notification No. 21/2002-Cus. Thus, the demand of ₹ 94,69,300/- is set aside. We, further, hold that no case of any suppression or any misstatement on the part of the appellant is made out. Accordingly, we hold that the extended period of limitation is not invokable. We also set aside the demand of ₹ 98,72,182/-. - Decided in favour of appellant
Issues:
1. Demand of duty on encyclopedia and dictionary clearances in DTA. 2. Demand of duty on catalogues, brochures, posters, labels, etc., cleared in DTA. 3. Interpretation of exemption notifications. 4. Application of extended period of limitation. Analysis: Issue 1 - Demand of duty on encyclopedia and dictionary clearances in DTA: The appellant contested the demand of duty, arguing that the items should be considered as printed books under Chapter 49 of CETA, thus exempt from duty as per Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. The appellant relied on the Tribunal's judgment in Tata Press Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, where a similar exemption was interpreted broadly to cover various printed materials falling under Chapter 49. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant's argument, setting aside the demand of &8377; 94,69,300. Issue 2 - Demand of duty on catalogues, brochures, posters, labels, etc., cleared in DTA: The appellant disputed the classification adopted by the Revenue, arguing that the Commissioner's order was based on incorrect observations and lacked a basis. The appellant contended that the transactions were properly recorded, with no suppression or misstatement. The Tribunal found in favor of the appellant, stating that there was no evidence of suppression or misstatement, and the extended period of limitation was not applicable. Consequently, the demand of &8377; 98,72,182 was set aside. Issue 3 - Interpretation of exemption notifications: The Revenue relied on strict construction of exemption notifications, citing precedents where compliance with conditions of exemption notifications was deemed essential. However, the Tribunal emphasized a broader interpretation of the exemption notification in question, aligning with the principle that exemption should apply to goods falling under Chapter 49, not just subheadings. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument, emphasizing the broad applicability of the exemption notification. Issue 4 - Application of extended period of limitation: The appellant argued against the invocation of the extended period of limitation, claiming that there was no suppression or misstatement, and all transactions were duly recorded and declared to the Revenue. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, ruling that the extended period of limitation was not applicable due to the absence of suppression or misstatement. Consequently, the demands were set aside, and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief. In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside both demands of duty and emphasizing the broad interpretation of exemption notifications and the inapplicability of the extended period of limitation in the absence of suppression or misstatement.
|
