Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Kirloskar Electric Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 4 November, 1999
Equivalent citations: 2000(68)ECC74
ORDER V.K. Agrawal, Member (T)
1. The issue involved in this appeal is whether Populated Printed Circuit Boards manufactured by M/s. Kirloskar Electric Co. Ltd. is classifiable under Heading 84.71 as claimed by the appellants or under Heading 84.73 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act as decided by the Collector in the impugned order and whether extended period of limitation is invokable.
2. The appellants, under their letter dated 29.10.99 have requested to decide the appeal on merit. We, therefore, heard Shri A.K. Jain, learned DR and perused the records. The learned DR drew our attention to para 23 of the impugned order in which the Collector has given his findings to the effect that the impugned products were supplied by the appellants to customers for the specified purpose of providing enhancement of capacity of the computer system already supplied and that during the personal hearing the represented of the appellants had stated unambiguously that the impugned goods were accessories of computers and were supplied for improving the efficacy of memory power of the computer system. The learned DR further submitted that the impugned goods were accessories which are clearly classifiable under Heading 84.73 of the Tariff.
3. We find the appellants have only urged in their memorandum of appeal that the goods in question are rightly classifiable as the units in terms of Chapter Note 5(b) to Chapter 84. They have not advanced any other ground to rebut the findings arrived at by the Collector in the impugned order. They have further contended that the demand is hit by the time limit as the classification list No. 2/87-88 filed on 1.3.88 was approved by the Asst. Collector on 24.6.88 and all the clearances were effected on the basis of approved classification list; that description of goods were furnished in all the relevant documents and as such mis-declaration or suppression is not proved by the Department. They have relied upon the decision in the case of Amod Electricals v. CCE, and Rainbow Ink & Varnish Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CCE, wherein it was held that the Asst. Collector is required to fully satisfy himself regarding nature and composition of goods, their process of manufacture and other relevant factors before approving the classification list. The Collector in the impugned order has held that the extended period of limitation is invokable as the appellants did not provide the necessary information in the form of product mannual, cataloque, detail write up with regard to the nature and function of the impugned goods along with the classification list. We do not find merit in this finding of the Collector. It is not denied by the Collector that the description of the goods in question was rightly mentioned by them in the classification list and if any further information in the form of product mannual or detail write up was required before approval of the classification list the same should have been demanded or requisitioned from the assessee. In view of these facts and in the light of the decisions, referred to above, the extended period of limitation as provided Under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act is not invokable as the appellants had filed the classification list which was duly approved. We, therefore, allow the appeal on the question of time limit.