9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 248X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 05 - For the period w.e.f. 1.3.2005, corresponding CETH 2520 seeks to cover “Gypsum: Anhydrite; Plasters (consisting of calcined Gypsum or Calcium Sulphate) whether or not coloured, with or without small quantities of Accelerators or Retarders”. As clarified in the HSN, the products of heading 32.14 are “preparations of widely differing composition which are essentially characterised by the uses to which they are put; these preparations are usually put up in a more or less pasty form and in general they harden after application; however, some are in solid or powder forms; the products of this heading are usually applied with a caulking gun, a spatula, a trowel, a plasterer’s float or similar tools” - the impugned product can only be classified in CETH 3214.00 prior to 1.3.2005 and 3214 90 10 thereafter. Time limitation - Held that:- appellant cannot be charged with any of the ingredients for invoking extended period like suppression of facts, misstatement etc. - the confirmation of differential Central Excise duty with interest in respect of the proceedings initiated by SCN No.39/2008 dt. 10.03.2008 will have to be restricted only to the normal period of limitation - only fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... overs only natural sands whereas dry mix process of the impugned product involves addition of portland cement, white cement and lime stone powder in various proportions. Hence it is not a case of only natural sands but one of mixture of sand with combined materials like port land cement, white cement and lime stone powder. After introduction of 8 digit nomenclature w.e.f. 1.3.2005, corresponding Chapter heading 2520 covers only Gypsum, Anhydrite and Plasters consisting of calcined gypsum and calcium sulphate. Hence after 1.3.2005 also, the drymix manufactured by assessee is outside the purview of CETH 2520. Ld. AR submits that the correct classification of dry mix should be under CETH 3214.90. He relies upon the Tribunal decision in Roofil Industries Vs CC Kandla - 2007 (219) ELT 422 (Tri.-Mumbai) involving import of similar products by the assessee through Kandla Port, where the classification has been held as CTH 3214.90 . 3. On the other hand, for the respondents, Ld. Advocate Shri G. Natarajan submits that substantial demand under first SCN is hit by limitation since detailed manufacturing process had been informed by appellants to department while applying for registration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .3.2005, corresponding CETH 2520 seeks to cover Gypsum: Anhydrite; Plasters (consisting of calcined Gypsum or Calcium Sulphate) whether or not coloured, with or without small quantities of Accelerators or Retarders . We thus find that even in the new 8 digit regime, CETH 2520 will include only those plasters consisting of calcined gypsum or calcium sulphate. Hence even after 1.3.2005, we are not able to find any merit in the assessee s claim for classification under CETH 2520.00. 4.3 On the other hand, we find that CETH 3214.00 of the erstwhile Tariff sought to cover putty resin cements, painters fillings and non- refractory surfacing preparations reading as follows : Heading No. Sub-heading No. Description of goods Rate of duty (1) (2) (3) (4) 3214 3214.00 Glaziers putty, grafting putty, resin cements, caulking compounds and other mastics; painters fillings; non-refractory surfacing preparations for facades, indoor wal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erised by the uses to which they are put; these preparations are usually put up in a more or less pasty form and in general they harden after application; however, some are in solid or powder forms; the products of this heading are usually applied with a caulking gun, a spatula, a trowel, a plasterer s float or similar tools . 4.4 Viewed in this light, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned product can only be classified in CETH 3214.00 prior to 1.3.2005 and 3214 90 10 thereafter as correctly held by both the original adjudicating authorities in the two OIOs dt.10.02.2009 and 16.07.2009. The impugned orders setting aside this classification cannot therefore be sustained and is therefore set aside in its entirety which will have the effect of restoring the classification upheld by the original adjudicating authorities. So ordered. 4.5 At the same time, we find merit in the Ld. Advocate s contention that substantial period of the first SCN dated 10.03.2008, for the period July 2005 to Jan 2008, whereby duty demand of ₹ 42,71,429/- was confirmed by the OIO dated 10.02.2009, is hit by limitation. The detailed manufacturing process had been informed by the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
