9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (5) TMI 494X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e show-cause notice itself was silent as to whether the machineries were cleared for some purposes other than tea industry – the assessee had been paying the duty under the same Chapter Heading by availing the benefit of Notification and the Department did not raise any objection, so far as the approved Classification List effective from 01.04.95 – rightly held that when classification lists are filed and approved allegation of suppression or willful mis-statement in order to invoke extended period for demand is not sustainable - adjudicating authority cannot alter the classification accepted by the Assistant Commissioner who is the proper officer under Central Excise Law to finalize classification – against revenue. - Ex. Appeal No.633/0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eved by this Order, the Revenue is in appeal before us. 4. Learned AR for the Revenue contended that Chapter Heading 84.33 does not cover Tea Sorting Machine and Tea Extractor Machine. The contention of the Revenue is that the goods are rightly classifiable under 8438. The contention is that there was an element of suppression of facts and misdeclaration/misclassification and the learned Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate the same. The learned AR also reiterated what is stated in the Grounds of Appeals. 5. Learned Consultant appearing for the Respondents contended that they were clearing the goods at nil rate of duty as per their classification of the goods in question under Chapter Heading 84.33, vide their Classification ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 1.3.99. These findings of the adjudicating authority have not been disputed in the Review Order. Copies of classification lists/declarations available in the case files presented in course of personal hearing also support this finding of the Assistant Commissioner. According to the Review Order the adjudicating authority should have appreciated the fact that evidence available before him was not available before the Assistant Commissioner at the time of approval of the classification list. But no such evidence has been specified by the Commissioner. I have perused the show-cause notice available in the case of file forwarded by the Commissioner but I do not find any such evidence in the show cause notice which was not available to the Ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d [2005(186)ELT 0491(T)] (ii) Acon s Construction Products Ltd. [2005 (184) ELT 120(SC) (iii) Graver Weil (l) Ltd. [2004 (174) ELT 0487 (T)] (iv) Sapana Polyweave Pvt. Ltd. [2003(151) EIT A83(SC)] 8.The review order also held that there is no estoppel in the matter of taxation. I agree with the Commissioner that there is no estoppel in taxation matters. Taxing authority can change its view which it had taken for earlier period in respect of subsequent period. But this change should be prospective and not retrospective. I therefore hold that the adjudicating authority cannot alter the classification accepted by the Assistant Commissioner who is the proper officer under Central Excise Law to finalize classification unless th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
