Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu
Bio Chemical And Synthetic Products ... vs C.C.E. on 10 March, 1994
Equivalent citations: 1994ECR186(TRI.-CHENNAI), 1994(74)ELT761(TRI-CHENNAI)
ORDER V.P. Gulati, Member (T)
1. This appeal is filed against the order of the Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Hyderabad dated 20-4-1993. Under the impugned order a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- has been levied on the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has cleared goods pending approval of the classification list. However, the adjudicating authority has dropped proceedings relating to demand of duty on the ground that the appellant had made the Department aware of the removal of the goods based on the classification list filed by them and there was no suppression of facts.
2. The learned Consultant for the appellants pleaded that the appellants had been filing the classification list all along and were under the impression that the same had been approved. In any case the Department knew that the appellants were clearing the goods and the learned lower authority has also held that there was no suppression on their part. In the face of that, he pleaded, the appellants should not be charged with any contravention of law and therefore pleaded that penalty should not have been levied on the appellants.
3. The learned D.R. adopted the reasoning of the learned lower authority.
4. It is seen from the narration of facts as set out in the order of the learned lower authority that the appellants got their classification list approved for the first time on 27-6-1986. Thereafter they had been filing, as required under the law, classification lists regularly and these are kept pending for approval as the goods were to be tested and the chemical report of the analyst was awaited. The appellants based on the approval already granted during 1986 went on clearing goods and paying duty on that basis. It is seen that the authorities did not do the assessment on provisional basis, nor the appellants asked for the same and on receipt of the report of the Chemical analyst a show cause notice was issued on 3-8-1992 and duty was demanded for the period 1-8-1986 to 31-12-1990 holding that the goods are not classifiable under the heading what was already approved on 27-6-1986. In this background it is seen that so far as the appellants are concerned they had complied with the requirements of filing of the classification list and if the classification list was not approved it was for no fault on their part. It could not be expected that the appellants would stop their clearances just because the Assistant Collector concerned had not chosen to finalise their classification list. The appellants had no reason to doubt that their goods were not classifiable under the heading which was earlier approved. The authorities apparently would have been also receiving the RT-12 returns and also assessing the same regularly. In this background the only understanding that the appellants would have got would be that their classification list stood approved. In any case if at all there is any failure it can only be attributed to the jurisdictional Central Excise authorities, who sat over the classification list. The appellants in such circumstances, though technically can be said to have cleared the goods without the approval of the classification list cannot be visited with penal consequences as the authorities had given their tacit approval to the classification by assessing the RT-12 etc. as filed by the appellants. In the above view of the matter I hold that in the facts and circumstances of this case there was no warrant for levy of any penalty. The learned lower authority's order is therefore set aside and the appeal is allowed.