9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (2) TMI 1318 - AT - CustomsClassification of imported goods - rods or wires - Polycab-wires - Extended Period of limitation - Levy of penalty - HELD THAT - It is apparent that the appellants have declared in their documents the fact that the goods were imported in the shape of coils. It has been recorded in the Order-In-Original as well reproduced in Counsel's arguments. The only reason for change of classification is the chapter note (d) and (f) of Chapter 74 of Custom Tariff. Thus, it is clear that there was no suppression of any kind and in these circumstances, the invocation of a longer period of limitation cannot be justified. The notice is clearly barred by limitation - The appeal is consequently allowed.
Issues involved:
- Appeal against rejection of declared classification of Polycab-wires Summary: The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad heard an appeal regarding the rejection of declared classification of Polycab-wires. The appellant had imported goods described as rods, but in the form of coils. The dispute centered on whether the goods should be classified as wire or rod based on the form of importation. The appellant contended that they had consistently declared the goods as coils in all documents, even though known as rods commercially. The Order-in-Original acknowledged the goods were in coil form. The appellant sought relief from penalty, having already paid duty and penalty, and argued there was no intention to evade duty. The Tribunal noted that the only reason for the change in classification was the customs tariff chapter notes distinguishing bars/rods from wires based on coil form. The notes specified that bars/rods should not be in coil shape. Since the facts were correctly disclosed, the Tribunal held that the notice was barred by limitation. Consequently, the appeal was allowed. In conclusion, the Tribunal found in favor of the appellant, emphasizing that the goods were correctly declared as coils, and there was no suppression of facts. Therefore, the invocation of a longer period of limitation for the notice was deemed unjustified. The appellant's appeal against the rejection of declared classification of Polycab-wires was allowed by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad.
|
