9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1695X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or organo-sulphur compounds while the subsequent approvals classified the impugned goods as silicones in primary forms . Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The approval of the declaration in the classification list was to be a deliberated consequence of due ascertainment and, in the context of specific description of the manufactured goods, the responsibility thereof cannot be wished away by alleging mis-declaration on the part of the assessee. There is no evidence that the information provided therein was insufficient for such ascertainment - thus with the approval of classification list, extended period cannot be invoked. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Excise Appeal No: 1453 of 2010 - A/87213/2019 - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y letter dated 6th March 1989, for the first time directed that differential duty be discharged by applying the lower of the two effective rates. 2. According to Learned Counsel for the appellant, this direction was complied with for the period between 1st October 1986 and 31st March 1989 and classification list, as prescribed in rule 173B of Central Excise Rules, 1944, was filed and approved by the jurisdictional authority. Notwithstanding this, show cause notice dated 4th November 1991 came to be issued for recovery of ₹71,529,994 as liability during the period from 1st October 1986 to 31st July 1990 on the ground that the goods were manufactured out of silicone emulsion and hence not eligible for the concessional r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rate should have been extended to them. Furthermore, the competence of the original authority to invoke the extended period and the inordinate delay in disposing of the show cause notice sufficed, she contended, for setting aside the demand and penalty. 5. We have heard the Learned Authorised Representative at length opposing the claims made on behalf of the appellant. 6. It is seen that the original classification adopted, and approved, was the residual entry within organo-inorganic compounds under the broader heading of Organo-inorganic compounds, heterocyclic compounds, nucleic acids and their salts, and sulphonamides that was preceded by the specific subheading for organo-sulphur compounds while the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rules, 1944 had upon the scope for invoking the extended period of limitation under section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944. 10. In Tata Iron Steel Co Ltd v. Union of India and Others [1988 (35) ELT 605 (SC)], it was held that 7. Regarding the question of limitation, the dispute is whether, assuming that the demand made by the Collector was valid, what is the period to which it could relate, it being common ground that as far as composite units comprising wheels, tyres and axles supplied by the appellant to the Indian Railways are concerned the demand under Item No. 68 of the Central Excise Tariff was justified. The question here is as to whether that demand could extend only to six months prior to the se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 11A of the said Act. In view of this, the period of limitation would clearly be only six months prior to the service of the show cause notice. The demand for excise duty against the appellant on the said composite units under Item No. 68 of the Excise Tariff, to the extent that it exceeds the period of six months prior to the service of the show cause notice must, therefore, be struck down. 11. In Collector of Central Excise v. Muzzaffarnagar Steels [1989 (44) ELT 552 (Tribunal), the responsibilities devolving on the competent authority in according approval to classification is elaborated thus 13. The Rule 173B providing for the filing of classification list clearly shows that what is required of the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able addition, subtraction or modification in the Classification List and indicate whatever was deemed proper by him and to allow benefit, if any, due. In these circumstances, we consider that the department has not been able to show that there was a deliberate suppression or mis-statement of facts with the intention to evade duty or to wrongfully avail of the benefit of exemption notification. As such we are of the view that the Department was not entitled to invoke the extended time period under Section 11A. 12. That the heading in the classification list did not have to be approved unless the claim thereof was ascertained has been laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in OK Play (India) Ltd v. Commissioner of Central E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
