9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (1) TMI 115X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 85.47. Hence, in our view, the said findings rendered by the Tribunal do not call for interference. Prima facie, it is apparent that there was no justifiable reason for invoking larger period of limitation. There is no suppression on the part of the appellant-firm in mentioning the goods manufactured by it. By merely claiming it under heading 3926.90 it cannot be said that there was any wilful misstatement or suppression of fact. Hence, there was no justifiable ground for the Tribunal for invoking the first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 11A of the Act. Appeals are allowed, impugned orders passed by the Tribunal are modified. Order imposing penalty is set aside X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5.47 reads thus :- "Insulating fittings for electrical machines, appliances or equipment, being fittings wholly of insulating material apart from any minor components of metal (for example, threaded sockets) incorporated during moulding solely for purposes of assembly, other than insulators of heading No. 85.46; electrical conduit tubing and joints therefore, of base metal lined with insulating material." 5.The Tribunal after considering arguments raised by the parties arrived at the conclusion that the goods manufactured by the petitioners were classifiable under Heading 85.47. It was not disputed before the Tribunal that the goods in question were insulated fittings for electrical machines but what was claimed was that these g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The concerned officers of the Department, as noted above, after verification approved the said classification list. This Court has repeatedly held that for invoking extended period of limitation under the said provision duty should not have been paid, short-levied or short-paid by suppression of fact or in contravention of any provision or rules but there should be wilful suppression. [Re : M/s. Easland Combines, Coimbatore v. The Collector of Central Excise, Coimbatore, C.A. No. 2693 of 2000 etc. decided on 13-1-2003]. By merely claiming it under heading 3926.90 it cannot be said that there was any wilful misstatement or suppression of fact. Hence, there was no justifiable ground for the Tribunal for invoking the first proviso to sub-sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
