9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 169X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) , though the Chapter Heading is mentioned as 4405 in these Bills of Entry. Since the appellant has correctly described the products in the Bills of Entry, there is no mis-declaration or suppression of facts, hence, the extended period of limitation cannot be sustained. Appeal is allowed. - HON'BLE DR. D. M. MISRA , MEMBER ( JUDICIAL ) And HON'BLE MRS. R. BHAGYA DEVI , MEMBER ( TECHNICAL ) Mr. A. S. Monnappa , Advocate for the Appellant Mr. Maneesh Akhoury , Asst. Commissioner ( AR ) for the Respondent ORDER PER : R. BHAGYA DEVI This appeal if filed against Order-in-Appeal No. 105/2017 dated 19.04.2017 passed by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Bangalore. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant M/s. Shashi Industr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Central Excise: 1998 (101) ELT 549 (SC) and the decision of the Hon ble High Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs vs. Gaurav Enterprises: 2006 (193) ELT 532 (Bom.). 4. The learned Authorized Representative reiterating the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) submits that since the appellant does not dispute the classification and discharged the differential duty along with interest, the appeal is to be dismissed. 5. Heard both sides and perused the records. There is no dispute that the goods have been re-classified correctly and the appellant also does not dispute this fact, hence, the classification is upheld. The only issue to be decided is whether extended period of limitation is application to the present set of facts and ci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the belief entertained by the appellant and therefore, cannot be said to be a misdeclaration as contemplated by Section 111(m) of the Customs Act. As the appellant had given full and correct particulars as regards the nature and size of the goods, it is difficult to believe that it had referred to the wrong exemption notification with any dishonest intention of evading proper payment of countervailing duty. 23. We, therefore, hold that the appellant had not mis-declared the imported goods either by making a wrong declaration as regards the classification of the goods or by claiming benefit of the exemption notifications which have been found not applicable to the imported goods. We are also of the view that the declarations in the Bill o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
