9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (6) TMI 273X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. Vide the impugned order Commissioner has confirmed demand of duty of Rs. 3,74,39,578/- (Rupees three crores seventy-four lakhs thirty-nine thousand five hundred and seventy-eight) by rejecting the appellants claim of classification of the said goods under sub-heading 3926.90 and by holding that they were classifiable as electrical insulators under Heading 8546.00. The period for which the demand has been confirmed is from 1-4-1991 to 30-4-1995. The show cause notice was issued on 2-5-1996. 3. Shri S.K. Bagaria, ld. Adv. appearing for the appellant attacks the impugned on merits as also on limitation. He submits that the classification of the glass filled nylon 66 insulating liners stands decided in favour of the appellants-company ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Board will have effect only prospectively and cannot change the classifications duly approved by the Revenue for the past periods and the assessments made on the basis of the said approved classification lists. He submits that after issuance of the circular on 26-3-1996, Indian Plastic Federation took up the matter with the Board to clarify as to whether the said circular as regards change of classification will apply for prospective period or the same will also have any relevance for the past period. Thereafter the Board issued another Circular No. 410/48/98-CX., dt. 30-7-1998 clarifying that the orders/circulars issued by it under Section 37B as regards practice of assessments can have only prospective effect from the date of issua ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n lists filed by them were duly approved by the proper officer. 6. Ld. Adv. submits that the Commissioner has relied upon the letter dt. 24-10-1995 written by RITES to the effect that the appellant knew that the goods were insulators and not plastic materials but did not disclose the said fact to the Revenue. He submits that the said letter was addressed to the Asstt. Commr. and was never endorsed by RITES to the appellant. As such the same could not be in the appellants knowledge. In any case the same was prior to the period involved and as such cannot be relied upon by the Revenue. In any case he submits that they were manufacturing the items as per the designs given by RDSO, who is the inspecting authority. RDSO have certified that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iling declarations as also the classification lists claiming the classification under Chapter 39. If that be so, can it be said that there was any suppression on the part of the appellant with intent to evade payment of duty. The adjudicating authority nowhere clarifies as to what has been misdeclared by the appellant and in which manner. It is well settled law that wrong claiming of classification or the benefit of an exemption notification by itself does not amount to suppression or misdeclaration unless there are certain facts which were required to be disclosed by the assessee but have not been disclosed. Merely because the appellants claim the classification under Chapter 39 instead of Chapter 85, ipso facto will not prove the charge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
