9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 331X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the time of filing the Bills of Entry. In fact, the correct classification of the goods was arrived at by DRI on a perusal of the said documents submitted at the time of import. The goods were not mis-declared and the declaration in the Bills of Entry were as per invoice. Even in his statement reordered by DRI, Mr. M Jayaramachandar had stated that they used to procure the same goods indigenously and the Indian manufacturers 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 mis-declaration and suppression of fact, fails. Since the onus of assessment was on the department and the Appellant had submitted the necessar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 variety of steel along with fine and penalty. After due process, the adjudicating authority reclassified the goods under CTH 7226 with respect to SCM 435 and appropriated the differential duty along with interest already paid by the appellant during the course of investigation and imposed penalty. However, he refrained from imposing redemption fine as the goods were not available for confiscation. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issued Show Cause Notice No. S59/55/2011-Gr. 4, dated 8-6-2011 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 knowledge of the Department since the issue of the first show cause notice. Further, the Appellant for each import have furnished along with the Bills of Entry and invoices, copies of inspection certificate as well. The Appellant submits that they had produced test certificate containing the composition of various alloys and the relevant invoice at the time of filing the Bills of Entry. That the present appeal pertains to the tax regime prior t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to mis-declaration 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 and have heard the rival parties. We find that there is no dispute regarding the classification of the goods. It s only the invocation of the extended period of time for demand of duty along with the imposition of penalty that is under challenge. The question involved is whether mis-declaration and suppression of facts is involved in this case. 4.1 Any breach of a civil obligation under the Act is a blameworthy conduct by the assessee. What n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
