Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Calcutta
M/S The Small Tools Mfg. Company Of India ... vs Commr. Of Central Excise, Cal.I on 3 January, 2001
ORDER
Smt. Archna Wadhwa
1. After dispensing with the condition of predeposit of duty amount of Rs.1,63,513/- and an equivalent amount of penalty, we take up the appeal itself with the consent of both the sides.
2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of H.S.S. Reamers, milling cutters, Taps, Tangential Chasers, Radial Chaser/Conventry, Flat/Circular thread rolling dies and Tool Bits. Vide the classification lists dated 27.7.91 filed with the proper officer, the appellants claimed the classification of the above products under Heading 8202.00. The said classification list was approved by the Assistant Commissioner on 7.2.92. Subsquently by the objection raised by their jurisdiction Central Excise authorities as regards the correct classification of the products, the appellants/applicants filed another classification list dated 3.3.93 claiming the classification of the product under Sub-heading 8207.00, as per the Revenue's contention and started paying duty accordingly.
2. Subsequently, a show-cause notice was issued to the appellants on 27.11.96 raising the demand of duty for the period 5.2.92 to 28.2.92 by alleging that the classification of the goods was under Heading 8207.00 and as such there was a suppression on the part of the appellants inasmuch as the use of the goods in question was not disclosed in the classification lists. The said demand of duty as proposed in the show-cause notice was confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner vide his impugned order-in-original which as upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence, the present appeal.
3. We have heard Shri D.K.Saha, ld.Consultant for the appellants and Shri V.K.Chaturvedi, ld.SDR for the Revenue. As per the undisputed factual position on record, the classification list filed by the appellants was approved by the proper officer. Copies of the classification lists for the relevant period have been placed before us. Perusal of the same shows that the appellants have given full description of the goods being manufactured by them. It is well settled proposition of law that before granting approval of the classification lists, the proper officer is required to make necessary verification and satisfy himself about the correct classification of the goods. The allegation of the Revenue that the appellants did not disclose the fact of use of goods in question as interchangeable tools for hand or machines and thus have suppressed the material facts, does not convince us inasmuch as we do not find any column in the classification list requiring the assessee to disclose the use of goods being manufactured by them. If the proper officer was entertaining any doubt about the correctness of the classification claimed by the appellants, he was within his power to ask for further information from the assessee, so as to arrive at the correct classification. The appellants having given full description of the goods, cannot be charged with suppression of facts or mis-statement with intent to evade payment of duty so as to justify the invokation of longer period of limitation. In view of the foregoing, we hold that the demand in question having been raised after a period of six months from the relevant date, is barred by limitation. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order the allow the appeal on the above point with consequential relief to the appellants.
Dictated the pronounced in the open Court.