9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 63X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gery Zeiss OPMI Pentero with accessories claiming the classification under CTH 90189099 along with benefit of Notification as per interpretation of the respective entry as understood by them. The Department, after accepting the classification accordingly assessed the goods and later, came to the conclusion that the classification declared by the appellant is not correct and the correct classification is CTH 90118000. Since this Tribunal has been consistently taking the view that where the description of the goods is correctly disclosed in the Bill of Entry and the relevant technical documents including brochures filed along with Bill of Entry, imposition of penalty under Section 114A in the said circumstances cannot be sustained. In the cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dvocate for the Appellant Mr. K. A. Jathin , Deputy Commissioner ( AR ) for the Respondent ORDER PER : DR. D. M. MISRA This appeal is filed against Order-in-Appeal No.1 to 3/2015 dated 07.01.2015 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Bangalore. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant had imported Surgical Microscope for Neurosurgery Zeiss OPMI Pentero with accessories from M/s. CEK Zeiss Meditec, Germany against Bill of Entry No.6464935 dated 05.04.2012 for their own use declared its classification under CTH 90189099 and claimed benefit of concessional rate of duty under Sl.No.473 of No.12/2012-Cus dated 17.03.2012 as amended. The Bill of Entry has been assessed and cleared as declared by the appellant. Lat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hai Superware India Ltd. Vs. CC [2020(371) ELT 324 (Tri. Mumbai) and in Hikoki Power Tools India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC [2024(3) TMI 137]. 4. Learned AR for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the learned Commissioner(Appeals). 5. Heard both sides and perused the records. 6. The short issue involved in the present appeal is whether penalty is imposable on the appellant for wrong declaration of the classification of the goods and also benefit of Notification No.12/2012-Cus dated 17.03.2012 in their Bill of Entry dated 05.04.2012. 7. We find that the appellant had disclosed the description of the goods in their Bill of Entry as Surgical Microscope for Neurosurgery Zeiss OPMI Pentero with accessories claiming the classification under CTH 90189099 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t according to their understanding under CTH 84322990. We find that the appellant declared the description of the goods correctly all along during the said period. Also, the goods were examined and assessed by the Department. Once the catalogue has been submitted by the appellant during the course of assessment, therefore, it is the responsibility of the Department to ascertain from the catalogue and description its classification under the appropriate heading. This Tribunal has consistently held that once the description of the goods is correctly disclosed, wrong classification of the said goods on the basis of description cannot be the basis for invoking extended period of limitation. Also, it has been held in a series of cases that merel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
