9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (4) TMI 347X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onal Commissioner classifying the product in dispute (caps) under sub-heading 6501.80 of the CETA. 2. The controversy in the present appeal revolves round the classification of the product caps, in the manufacture of which the appellants are engaged. According to them, their product is classifiable under CH 6201.00 as articles of apparel. Whereas the stand taken up by the Revenue is that the product cap being a headgear deserves classification under CH 6501.80. Both the authorities below have classified this product under CH 6501.08 of the CETA. 3. In order to seek classification of the caps under CH 6201.00 of the CETA, learned Counsel has leaned heavily on the ratio of the law laid down in India Waterproofing & Dyeing Works v. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted. Chapter 62 independently relates to the articles of apparel and clothing accessories, not knitted or crocheted. Chapter 63 covers other made-up textile articles, while Chapter 64 pertains to footwear, gaiters and like parts of such articles. Lastly, Chapter 65 refers to headgear and parts thereof. In the face of the change introduced by the new tariff, ratio of the law laid down in the above referred case (India Waterproofing & Dyeing Works), cannot be made basis for determining the classification of the product caps manufactured by the appellants. 5. Here what is required to determine is as to whether the caps manufactured by the appellants fall within the ambit of Chapter 62 or Chapter 65 of the CETA. It cannot be disputed that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... We, in the light of the discussions made above, do not find any sufficient ground to disagree with the same. 7. Regarding duty demand raised against the appellants after holding the classification of the caps under Chapter 65, by the Revenue, the Counsel has contended that the same is time-barred. The demand has been raised and confirmed for the period 1993 to 1998, while the show cause notice was served on the appellants on 9-3-98. According to the Counsel, the extended period of limitation could not be invoked, as the appellants were under the bona fide belief that their product was classifiable under Chapter 62 as articles of apparel and exempt from payment of duty. In our view, this contention of the Counsel, however, deserves to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... general terms that the appellants wilfully suppressed the facts of manufacture and clearance of branded caps from the department as they did not file any declaration as required under Rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules. But since according to the appellant's belief, their product cap as articles of apparel was exempt from payment of duty, occasion of filing declaration by them, did not arise. In the Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad v. Chemphar Drugs & Liniments, Hyderabad - 1989 (40) E.L.T. 276 (S.C.) = 1989 (21) ECC 66, it has been observed by the Apex Court that something positive other than mere inaction or failure on the part of the manufacturer or producer or conscious or deliberate withholding of information, when the manufact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
