9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 914X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Act, it is the duty of the adjudicating authority to classify correctly and to examine whether the classification sought is correct or not? Admittedly, the goods were classified under Chapter 84 of the Act. Therefore, proviso to Section 28 of Customs Act, 1962 are not invokable, to invite extended period of limitation in the facts of this case. The extended period of limitation is not invokable in the facts of this case, as whole of the demand confirmed against the appellant is by invoking extended period of limitation - penalty also not imposable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Customs Appeal No. 50332 of 2019 [DB] - FINAL ORDER No. 50526/2019 - Dated:- 8-4-2019 - MR. ASHOK JINDAL, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) And MR. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th the following directions:- 8. We find considerable force in this argument advanced by the appellant. We note that a significant portion of the imported goods are meant for captive consumption and not intended for manufacture of tools/ dies for M/s Honda. Goods falling in this category include items such as complete sets of dies checking fixtures, inspection jigs and various other such items. Such items are definitely required to be classified individually taking note of the nature of the goods imported and its individual classification. 9. In respect of goods which have been imported for use in the design and manufacture of tools/ dies to be supplied to M/s Honda, we are of the view that these are required to be assessed as pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s contention, he relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of T.S. Tech Sun India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CC, New Delhi vide Final Order No.56661/2017 dated 21.09.2017, Sandan Vikas India Ltd. vs. CC, New Delhi (ICD TKD) -2017 (357) ELT 893 (Tri.- Del.), Hero Electric Vehicles Pvt. Ltd. vs. CC, Ludhiana 2018 (364) ELT 1090 (Tri.-Chan.), Chemoplast vs. CCE (Import), Mumbai reported in 2016 (343) ELT 508 (Tri.-Mumbai), Natraj Stationery Products (P) Ltd. vs. CCE, Rohtak 2017 (348) ELT 568 (Tri.- Chan.). He reserved his rights to argue the matter on merits. 5. On the other hand, ld. A.R. supported the imputed order on merits as well as on limitation also. He submits that from 18.04.2011 self-assessment system was introduced and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lants have been proved and it is not a case of suppression of classification by the appellant. We also take note of the fact that the appellant sought classification under chapter 84 of the Act, it is the duty of the adjudicating authority to classify correctly and to examine whether the classification sought is correct or not? Admittedly, the goods were classified under Chapter 84 of the Act. Therefore, proviso to Section 28 of Customs Act, 1962 are not invokable, to invite extended period of limitation in the facts of this case. 9.1 Similar view has been taken by this Tribunal in the case of Natraj Stationery Products (P) Ltd. (Supra) wherein this Tribunal observed as under:- 11. We find that the issue of classification was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he normal period of one year, (the bill of entry was filed on 30-4-2007 and show cause notice was issued on 1-12-2009), it is hit by time-bar. 9.3. Further we take note of the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs. CCE, Mumbai reported in 2015 (328) ELT 684 (Tri. - Mumbai) which observed as under:- 7. We have gone through the case laws cited by the learned Advocate wherein the case of Densons Pultretaknik (supra) the Hon ble Apex Court has held that claiming wrong classification does not amount to suppression of facts. In the case of Markfed Refined Oil Allied Indus (supra), the Hon ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana has confirmed the view and observed that once the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
