TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal confirms pinion classification under Heading 84.83, upholds extended limitation period. Appeal dismissed.</h1> <h3>EIMCO ELECON (INDIA) LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., VADODARA</h3> The Tribunal confirmed the classification of the appellant's pinion under Heading 84.83, rejecting arguments for alternative classifications. Regarding ... Demand - Limitation - Classification Issues: Classification of pinion under Heading 8483, Applicability of extended period of limitation.Classification of pinion under Heading 8483:The appeal concerned the classification of a pinion manufactured by the appellant under Heading 8483 of the tariff. The Commissioner of Central Excise had confirmed this classification and imposed a penalty. The appellant contended that the pinions should be classified under Heading 72.26 as parts of general use or alternatively under Heading 84.12 as other engine air motor. However, the Tribunal disagreed with these contentions. It noted that the pinion, being a gear, should fall under Heading 84.83, as specified in the Explanatory Notes to the Harmonized System of Nomenclature. The appellant's argument based on a Trade Notice was also rejected as the machinery in question did not fall under the relevant headings mentioned in the circular. Consequently, the Tribunal confirmed the classification under Heading 84.83.Applicability of extended period of limitation:The appellant argued that the extended period of limitation should not apply as there was no suppression of facts. They contended that they had declared the goods in their classification list, albeit under different headings. The Commissioner, however, concluded that the appellant had not declared the goods under consideration as pinions at any time. The Tribunal found that the departmental officers could not have reasonably concluded that the goods were gearing or gear based on the descriptions provided. Therefore, the extended period of limitation was deemed rightly invoked, and the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, citing the Supreme Court's judgment in Rainbow Industries v. Union of India 1994 (74) E.L.T. 3 as not applicable in this case.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
