9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (6) TMI 82X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made out of aluminium alloy are not covered under Chapter 73 of CETA which covers product made out of iron and steel. These omissions and commissions on the part of the appellant constitute misdeclaration and therefore we hold that larger period of limitation has been correctly invoked. We, therefore uphold the demand of Rs. 19,31,569/- (Nineteen lakhs thirty-one thousand five hundred sixty-nine) for the period March 1994 to July 1997. We are however unable to uphold the imposition of penalty u/s 11AC read with Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for two reasons. For one thing Section 11AC has come into the statute book only w.e.f. 28-9-1996 whereas the demand pertains to a period prior to this date at least partly and for another a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le in aluminium alloy material in a variety of lengths and diameters." In this context, I refer to the description of goods falling under Heading 7318 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, wherein it is very clear that articles of Iron & Steel falls under this head. Since their goods namely rivets is manufactured out of Aluminium alloy, this product cannot be classified under chapter heading 7318, most appropriately this product falls under Heading 8308, wherein it is clearly mentioned that the Tubular or bifurcated rivets of base metal classified under this head. Therefore, the assessee's stand that the rivets manufactured by them were of iron and steel cannot be accepted. Secondly the operational sequences as shown in the liter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r premises, approved classification lists and assessed RT12 and have also checked their 57G declarations; (c) Samples of the product were furnished to the Department, details of manufacturing process and catalogues were also furnished; (d) The fact that the appellants declared their product as 'blind rivets' and not as 'Break mandrel blind rivets' cannot be a ground for alleging misdeclaration and if the Department was in any doubt, they ought to have conducted an enquiry and ask for further period before approving the classification lists; (e) The appellants relied upon the following judgments(e) : (i) CCE v. Muzaffarnagar Steels [1989 (44) E.L.T. 552 (T)] (ii) CCE v. Chemphar Drugs & Liniments [1989 (40) E.L.T. 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 18.29, they did not disclose to the department the fact that the rivets manufactured by them were break mandrel blind rivets or tubular rivets. This was a deliberate attempt on the part of the assessee to misclassify their product with an intention to evade payment of Central Excise duty. The factual position, i.e., application and the nature of the product revealed to the department only after its physical verification by the departmental officers. The classification lists of the product were approved as declared by the assessee and the information supplied by the assessee to support the same in their favour which led to misdeclaration of the product on the part of the assessee." We agree with the Commissioner's observation in Pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
