9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 58X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8-Customs, dated 1.7.2008. The instant case appear to be equally complex and it appear to me that there was no clarity, whatsoever, on the classification aspect, either to the Department or to the appellants. I find that in the instant case, the show Cause notice was issued on 17.01.2012 in respect of demand for the period from 27.01.2007 to 25.05.2009, as per the Annexure A attached to the SCN. The SCN as well as the impugned order do not elaborate as to why there was willful suppression or fraud except that in the impugned order, it is stated that the appellant had suppressed the full details of Fax machine and claimed specific tariff heading provided for Fax machine capable for connecting to an ADP machine or to a network. No other evide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rk. The notice was issued by invoking longer period of limitation and stands culminated into an impugned order passed by the Commissioner. 3. After hearing both sides at length, it is seen that in subsequent proceedings were for correct classification of processing machine imported by the appellant whereas the appellants have claimed the classification under heading 8443 32 60, Revenue has classified the same under heading 8443 32 70. Without going into the merits of the case, we find that show cause notice stand issued by invoking the longer period of limitation. The Commissioner has upheld the invocation of longer period of limitation by observing as under:- 87. The noticees have contended that in this case, there is no s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ious aspects of classification of goods and Customs duty angle. They are not working in isolation and in vacuum. When other importers are importing the identical goods and paying appropriate Customs duty, a reasonable doubt/query would be entertained by such importers and not to go by the single advice given by the supplier who has a vested interest in the matter. A reasonable course would have been to take up the matter with the Proper Officers of Department of clarify the issue or write to the Department indicating their view point. Nothing of this sort was done in this case. Ignoring distinct classification as provided in law and the dutibility angle in question, the noticees intentionally continued to mis-declare the goods and evade pay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... As such, to say that the appellants claimed wrong classification and are guilty of suppression is neither justified nor warranted. If the officer has assessed the goods in a particular heading, appellant cannot be blamed for claiming the same very classification. The Revenue is expected to be an expert body and to assess the goods under the correct heading. The reasoning of the adjudicating authority that when the other importers were importing identical goods and paying appropriate customs duty, the importer should have sought the advise cannot be appreciated inasmuch as if the other importer were importing the goods under the classification claimed by the Revenue, the Customs officer was equally bound by the same and is expected to be kno ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... they were not excisable or were chargeable to lower rate of duty, as the case may be, show cause notices have been issued covering five years period on receipt of the communication from the Board that the said goods are excisable or chargeable to higher rate of duty. Such type of cases could not normally be covered by the proviso of para (i) of Section 11A, as it would be difficult to prove fraud, collusion etc. when the Department as well as the Trade were not clear about the correct legal position. In such cases, it would ordinarily call for restricting the demands for six months from the relevant date only. There could be exceptions, say, where the assessments or RT 12s indicated that the matter had been opened up on some earlier date. F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... whatsoever, on the classification aspect, either to the Department or to the appellants. I find that in the instant case, the show Cause notice was issued on 17.01.2012 in respect of demand for the period from 27.01.2007 to 25.05.2009, as per the Annexure A attached to the SCN. The SCN as well as the impugned order do not elaborate as to why there was willful suppression or fraud except that in the impugned order, it is stated that the appellant had suppressed the full details of Fax machine and claimed specific tariff heading provided for Fax machine capable for connecting to an ADP machine or to a network. No other evidence is on record to support the ground of suppression. 6. We are not aware as to whether the Revenue has accepted t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
