Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Calcutta
U.T. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Cal.-I on 20 September, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2002(141)ELT371(TRI-KOLKATA)
JUDGMENT Archana Wadhwa, J.
1. After hearing Shri B.N. Chattopadhyay, ld. Consultant appearing for the appellans, and Shri D.K. Bhowmik, ld. JDR for the Revenue, we find that the present appeal can be disposed of on the point of limitation.
2. Vide the impugned order, the Commissioner has confirmed the demand of duty against the appellants and has imposed penalties upon them on the findings that Hydraulic Pit Props manufactured by the applicants/appellants were properly classifiable under heading 7308.40 instead of heading 8425.00, under which the applicants/appellants had cleared the same. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to them on 25.2.99 raised demand of duty against the applicants/appellants for the period from 1994-95 to 1997-98. The show cause notice culminated into the impugned order passed by the Commissioner.
3. Shri B.N. Chattopadhyay, ld. Consultant for the appellants, assails the impugned order on merits as also on limitation. Arguing on the limitation, he submits that the appellants have manufactured the said Hydraulic Pit Props for the last twenty years. Prior to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, the goods were being classified under Item 68. Thereafter, the same were being classified under sub-heading 8425.00. In this connection, he draws our attention to the various classification lists filed by them declaring the goods as Hydraulic Pit Props and claiming classification of the same under heading 84.25. All the classifications in question were approved by the proper officer. As such, he submits that there can be no case for invocation of the longer period of limitation. Further drawing our attention to the reasoning adopted by the adjudicating officer for invoking the longer period, he submits that the same has been invoked by observing that the appellants had deliberately suppressed the end-use of the product. As such, the proviso to Section 11A for invoking the extended period of five years was justified. The contention of Shri Chattopadhyay, ld. Consultant, is that having given the correct description of the product in question, the appellants have done their duty and there was no requirement to give the end-use of the product in the classification list, if the Revenue required it, before granting approval to the classification list, they were at liberty to ask for the same.
4. We have seen the various classification lists in question. In fact, it is seen that upto a certain point, both the headings attracted the same rate of duty. In one of the classification lists effective from 1.3.89, the appellants have initially specified the heading as 7308.40 and thereafter, it was cut by hand and substitute by a heading 8425.00 No objection was raised by the Revenue and the goods were approved under 8425.00. As such, it is seen that right from 1.3.89 onwards, the proper officers have approved the classification under 8425.00, in spite of the fact that a contending entry, 7308.40 was also before him. In these circumstances, we do not find any justification in invocation of the longer period against the appellants. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal on the point of limitation. Inasmuch, the demand of duty has been set aside on the point of time bar, we are not expressing any opinion on merits of the case.
5. Dictated and pronounced in the open Court.