9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 188X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... attained finality in the Supreme Court judgment in 2005, and the classification declarations were being filed regularly and the issue was very much in the knowledge of the Department, allegations of mis-declaration of description/usage in these circumstances are unsustainable. In view thereof, the penalty in these show cause notices is also not justified. As a result of the classification of final products as decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court in O.K. Play (I) Ltd. vs. CCE, Delhi-III [2005 (2) TMI 114 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], the appellants would not be entitled to nil/concessional rate of duty and would be required to pay duty at the prescribed statutory rate in the Tariff during the relevant period. However, they would be entitled to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll Models) 9503 9403 3. Play Pool 9503 3922.10 4. School Mate/Bags 3923.19 4201.90 5. Fun Station 9506.00 (As sports goods) 9506.00 (other than sport goods) 6. See Saw 9506 (As sport goods) 95069990 (other than sports goods w.e.f. 28.02.2005 Between the period April, 1992 to May, 2005, they were issued various show cause notices. The present proceedings are emanating from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... udication order was upheld. Aggrieved from the same, the appellants have filed this appeal. 2. Ld. Advocate for the appellants submits that the issue of classification which was under dispute for the period 1992 onwards had been settled by the final decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in February, 2005. He contended that the Hon ble Supreme Court set aside the demand and entire penalty for the period 01.04.1992 to 28.02.1997. Hence, there was no justification of the penalty in the present case also. He also contended that the appellants had discharged duty on moulding powder on the basis that the final products was toys and fully exempted from payment of duty. Since it has been held that the final products are not toys but furniture an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - 37. Being aggrieved, the department has come to this? Court by way of Civil Appeal Nos.6776-6779 of 2004. We do not find any infirmity in the decision of the Tribunal. The classification list was filed as far back as on 22nd October, 1992. Under the said list, the goods were declared as 'Baby Slide Toy', 'Baby Chair Toy', 'Baby Rocker Toy etc'. The said list was approved without enquiry by the department on the description of the product. The department did not call for the product catalogue during the aforestated period till February, 1997. According to the impugned show cause notice dated 4-11-1997, the product catalogue described the above items as Rockers, Slides, Swings and not as Baby Rocker Toy, Baby ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellants mis-declared the description of the goods as the usage/utility was well known to them and they misclassified their product with intent to evade the duty. However, we find that the issue is same in show cause notices in this appeal and before the Hon ble Apex Court and the Hon ble Tribunal. Since it was classification dispute, which attained finality in the Supreme Court judgment in 2005, and the classification declarations were being filed regularly and the issue was very much in the knowledge of the Department, allegations of mis-declaration of description/usage in these circumstances are unsustainable. In view thereof, the penalty in these show cause notices is also not justified. 6. As a result of the classification of final p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
