2015 (12) TMI 725 - AT - Customs

Tribunal rules for Appellant Company, overturns Customs duty demand under Central Excise Act

M/s Ajanta Manufacturing Ltd. And Shri K.S. Mehta Versus Commissioner of Customs, Kandla

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Appellant Company, setting aside the demand for additional duty of Customs (CVD) under Section 4A of the Central Excise ... Valuation - determination of CVD - Section 4 or 4A - MRP Based method of assessment - Invocation of extended period of limitation - Held that:- Appellants had filed Bills of Entry wherein the goods are described as ‘Part of CFL (Fluorescent Glass Tubes J5) classifiable under 8539.9010. It is also observed that the goods were examined in detail by the Customs officers in second check examination and were assessed at merit rate of duty and cleared out of Customs charge. As the Assessment had become final, the relevant date of issuance of Show Cause Notice would be reckoned by the normal time limit, unless the ingredients for invoking the extended period under Section 28 of Customs Act are attracted. The Department was aware that the goods attracted MPR assessment under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act. Therefore, before final assessment of Bills of Entry, they should have raised the question of proper valuation for assessment of CVD. Since they have not done so, the extended period cannot be invoked. - Order-in-Original cannot be sustained in the said respect. Hence, the impugned Order-in-Original is modified to the extent that the demand beyond the normal period of 6 months is set aside. The penalties are also set aside. - Decided partly in favour of assessee. Issues:Classification of imported goods under Customs TariffApplicability of additional duty of Customs (CVD) under Section 4A of Central Excise ActTime limitation for issuance of Show Cause NoticeClassification of imported goods under Customs Tariff:The case involved the import of Fluorescent Glass Tubes by a company, declared as part of CFL under a specific heading of the Customs Tariff. The Revenue contended that the goods should have been cleared by paying additional duty of Customs (CVD) under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act. The Appellant argued that the goods were examined during import, accepted for classification, and no facts were suppressed in the Bills of Entry. The Tribunal noted that the goods were examined, assessed at the merit rate of duty, and cleared, making the Show Cause Notice beyond the normal 6-month time limit.Applicability of additional duty of Customs (CVD) under Section 4A of Central Excise Act:The Revenue claimed that the Appellants were aware of the goods falling under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act but deliberately suppressed this information, leading to incorrect declaration as part of CFL. The Appellant's counsel argued that the extended 5-year period for invoking the Show Cause Notice was not applicable as the goods had been examined, assessed, and cleared without any valuation issues raised before final assessment.Time limitation for issuance of Show Cause Notice:The Tribunal found that since the goods were examined, assessed, and cleared without any valuation issues raised by the Department before final assessment, the extended period under Section 28 of the Customs Act could not be invoked. As a result, the Order-in-Original was modified to set aside the demand beyond the normal 6-month period, and the penalties were also set aside. The appeal of the Appellant Company was partly allowed, with the impugned order being modified in their favor.This judgment highlights the importance of correct classification under the Customs Tariff, the implications of additional duty under the Central Excise Act, and the significance of time limitations for issuing Show Cause Notices in customs matters.