9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 1729X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . It was stated in the said show cause notice that the appellant was manufacturing the said goods and classifying the said goods under Tariff Item No. 15119090 of the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 instead of classifying the same under Tariff Item No. 38231112 of the said Schedule. The said show cause notice alleged that by classifying the said goods under Chapter 15, the appellant had evaded payment of central excise duty for the period from February 2009 to July 2020. At para 27 of the said show cause notice, it was stated that by misdeclaring and misclassifying the subject goods under Tariff Item No.15119090 instead of Tariff Item No.38231112 of Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, the appellant had wrongly availed t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gned order-in-original wherein at para 37 learned original authority has stated that the appellant had relied upon Customs circular issued by Central Board of Excise and Customs which was for imported goods and it clearly shows that the goods were misclassified intentionally under Tariff Item No.15119090 instead of Tariff Item No.38231112 of the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 to avail the benefit of nil rate of duty and that shows suppression of fact on the part of the appellant with intent to evade the duty. Observing the same, learned original authority confirmed the demand and imposed equal penalty under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944. The original authority further directed the appellant to pay interest at appropr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... apatnam-II reported at 2009 (244) ELT 69 (Tri.-Bang.). He has further submitted that till such time Hon'ble Supreme Court on 15.12.2010 decided the classification of the said goods under Tariff Item No.38231112 the goods were classified under Chapter 15, and therefore there cannot be any demand on the basis of extended period of limitation alleging that the appellant had contravened any of the provisions of law. He has submitted that the impugned demand is hit by limitation. He has further submitted that at para 11.2 of the show cause notice, it is stated that the appellant in ER-1 return has duly classified the product RBD palm stearin under Tariff Item No.151190, then it cannot be alleged that the appellant has suppressed the facts from t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
