9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 502X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SUS JOCIL LTD. [ 2010 (12) TMI 24 - SUPREME COURT ] and it has been held that Palm Stearin is classifiable under Central Excise Tariff Heading 3823 and not under CTH 1511. Thus, it has been decided against assessee and in favour of the revenue - Respectfully following the judgment of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of JOCIL Ltd, it is held that the appellant s product is classifiable under CTH 3823 and not under CTH 1511 as claimed by the appellant. Consequently, the exemption notification claimed by the appellant is also not applicable as the relevant entry pertains to only goods falling under Chapter Heading 1507 to 1515. Clearly the appellant s product falling under CTH 3823 is not covered. Extended period of Limitation - HELD THAT:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ATA SUBBA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Vipin Varma, Advocate for the Appellant. Shri L.V. Rao, Authorized Representative for the Respondent. ORDER PER: P.V. SUBBA RAO 1. The appellant herein is engaged in processing refined edible oils like palmolein oil, refined palm oil, etc. One of their final products is RBD Palm Stearin which they manufacture from refined palm oil. The appellant was earlier clearing this product classifying it under Central Excise Tariff heading 1511 9090 and claiming the benefit of exemption notification No.03/2006- CE dt.01.03.2006 (S.No.9) (as amended). The appellant had filed the ER-1 returns accordingly. CBEC had also issued Circular No.81/2002-CUS dt.03.12.2002 regarding classification of the product. It was clar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the revenue in the show cause notice and confirmed by the impugned order invoking extended period of limitation. 4. The period involved in this case is September, 2008 to September, 2010 and the show cause notice was issued on 31.05.2012 and adjudicated by the impugned order on 25.09.2012. Although the show cause notice covered the period of September, 2008 to March, 2012, the annexure to the show cause notice would show that clearance were only up to September, 2010 and not beyond. Therefore, the entire demand has been raised in the show cause notice invoking extended period of limitation. Interest was also demanded and an equivalent amount of penalty has been imposed under section 11AC. Penalty was also imposed under Rule 25 of Central E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r, this was not done. No action was taken until the expiry of normal period of limitation and thereafter, demand has been raised invoking extended period of limitation. We do not find any evidence of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts or violation of the Act or Rules with intention to evade payment of duty. All that can be said against the assessee is that they made a wrong claim of classification based on their own arguments, although, consequent upon the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court, the assessee s classification is not correct. The entire demand is based on the information provided by the assessee in their ER-1 returns. Making a wrong claim of classification, per se, is neither fraud nor collusion nor wil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
