Tribunal overturns order in mis-declaration case

The Tribunal set aside the order against the Appellant in a case involving mis-declaration of imported goods for CVD assessment. The Appellant correctly declared the CET of the batteries, leading to the order being overturned on the basis of limitation. The appeal was allowed, and consequential relief was granted to the Appellant.

---

---

Issues:
The issues involved are mis-declaration of imported goods leading to the incorrect assessment of countervailing duty (CVD) under Section 4 instead of Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the invocation of the extended period to confirm the duty.

Mis-declaration of Imported Goods:
The Appellant imported Lead Acid Electric Accumulators/Storage Batteries falling under CET 850710.00 during April 2006-2010. The Department concluded that the batteries are exigible to duty under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, instead of Section 4. Proceedings were initiated against the Appellant for mis-declaration and claiming the benefit of lower CVD. A demand of Rs.67,57,170/- was confirmed with interest and penalty.

Assessment of CVD under Section 4A:
The Appellant argued that the Customs officials should have assessed the batteries under Section 4A for CVD purposes as clarified by the Central Excise Tariff. The Appellant maintained that there was no suppression on their part to evade duties, as they correctly declared the CET of the imported goods. The Appellant contended that the Department erred in invoking the extended period to confirm the duty and requested the Order to be set aside on the grounds of limitation.

Judgment:
After hearing both sides and examining the Bills of Entry, it was observed that the Appellant had declared the correct CET of the imported batteries, which was not disputed by the Department. The Customs officials assessed the Bills of Entry by charging the CVD under Section 4, as per the Appellant's declaration. While it was acknowledged that the batteries should be classified under Section 4A, the focus of the argument was on the limitation issue. The Tribunal found no suppression by the Appellant to warrant the extended period for confirming the duty. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside solely on the basis of limitation.

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside on the grounds of limitation. The Appellant was granted consequential relief as per the law.

---