9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 1263X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unit on 2.12.2009 in connection with the import of SCM 435 and C45E varieties of steel. With respect to SCM 435 variety of steel, they felt that the same was not eligible for exemption provided under Sl. No. 190C of Notification No. 21/2002 as they were an alloy and do not qualify for the exemption. This was accepted by the appellants and the appellant paid the differential duty of Rs.9,25,055/- along with interest. As regards C45E variety of steel, the same was tested in National Metallurgical Laboratory, Chennai and found to be eligible for classification under Chapter 7211. Hence Show Cause Notice dated 21.4.2011 was issued to the appellant proposing to demand the differential duty of Rs.9,25,055/- along with interest for SCM 435 variet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CA-2008 dated 01.05.2009 for which differential duty along with interest was paid vide TR-6 Challan No. 0502285 dated 16.05.2009. Subsequently, DRI issued Show Cause Notice in DRI File No. VIII/26/13/2009-DRI-CBE dated 21.04.2011 proposing to demand differential duty by invoking extended period and impose penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act for the period in dispute. In supersession of the said DRI SCN, the Ld. Joint Commissioner issued Show Cause Notice No. S59/55/2011-Gr. 4 dated 08.06.2011 for the very same period in dispute. The Appellant submits that it is settled law that extended period of limitation is not applicable in case of subsequent show cause notices wherein the facts of the Appellant's case were well within the kno ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s have not disputed the classification and have paid the duty. Show Cause Notice No. S59/55/2011-Gr.4 dated 08.06.2011 was issued in supersession of the Show Cause Notice issued by DRI from File No. VIII/26/13/2009-DRI-CBE dated 21.04.2011 as per instructions contained in Board's Circular, hence it cannot be said that a second SCN was issued in the same case. Had the matter not been investigated, duty would have been evaded by the Appellant due to misdeclaration and suppression of fact and hence the invocation of the extended period and penalty was justified. He further reiterated the points given in the impugned order. He prayed that the impugned order may be upheld, and the appeal be rejected. 4. We have carefully gone through the appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ufacturers also classified the same only under CTH 7211 as had been declared by them in the Bills of Entry. This has not been controverted by the Department. This being so the charge of misdeclaration and suppression of fact, fails. Since the onus of assessment was on the department and the Appellant had submitted the necessary documents to facilitate the same, they cannot be held responsible for suggesting a certain classification heading in the Bill of Entry. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Northern Plastic Ltd. v. Collector of Customs & Central Excise [1998 (101) E.L.T. 549 (S.C.)] that mere claiming the benefit of exemption or a particular classification under the bill of entry does not amount to mis-declaration or suppressi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
