9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (12) TMI 518X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Commissioner (Appeals) or under different tariff headings, being parts of general use and whether the extended period of limitation is invocable for demanding Central Excise duty. 2. Shri Y. Kumar, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellants, a proprietorship SSI unit, manufacture various items like pins, nuts, bolts, screws, washers, collars, etc. of iron and steel; that the Joint Commissioner, under the Order-in-Original No. 5/2000, dated 19-12-2000 confirmed the demand of duty and imposed penalty on the ground that they are manufacturing parts of locks, which are classifiable under Heading 83.01 and not under Chapter 73; that the Commissioner (Appeals) also, under the impugned order, has rejected their appeal on the ground t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ews under Heading 73.18 of the Tariff relying upon Note 2(a) of Section XV and Section 2(a) to Section XVI. The learned Advocate also relied upon Note 1 to Chapter 83 which clearly mentions that parts of base metal are to be classified with the articles; that, however, articles of iron and steel of Heading Nos. 73.12, 73.15, 73.17, 73.18 & 73.20 or similar articles of other base metal are not to be taken as parts of the articles of Chapter 83; that, accordingly, nuts, bolts, rivets, etc. are classifiable under Chapter 73.18. Finally, the learned Advocate, submitted that the demand pertains to the period from 6-9-97 to 26-2-99 whereas a show cause notice has been issued on 24-4-2000, which is beyond normal period of limitation specified unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the various goods manufactured by them. It has also not been controverted by the Revenue that R.T. 12 Returns indicating the classification of these products were also filed by the appellants regularly. Once the appellants have declared the classification of the product as per their understanding, Department cannot attribute mala fide intention without adducing the evidence to that effect. The appellants have classified these products under different Headings treating their product as goods of general use and relying upon Note 1 to Chapter 83 of the Tariff. The appellants have also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Densons Pultretaknik (supra) wherein the Supreme Court has held that by merely claiming the product ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
