Final Customs classification bars excise reclassification; proforma credit stands, and extended limitation needs proved suppression.

Customs classification that has attained finality for countervailing duty cannot be reopened by Central Excise authorities to deny consequential proforma credit under Rule 56A; the departmental reclassification was treated as beyond jurisdiction, and credit could not be withdrawn on that basis. A show cause notice issued beyond six months was also time-barred because extended limitation requires proved suppression, wilful misstatement or collusion, and the import records, bills of entry, D-3 forms and registers were already before the department. On the facts recorded, no material supported suppression or misdeclaration, so the demand failed on limitation as well.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Central Excise authorities were bound by the Customs classification adopted for countervailing duty and could reclassify the goods for denying proforma credit under Rule 56A. (ii) Whether the show cause notice was barred by limitation in the absence of suppression or misstatement.

Issue (i): Whether the Central Excise authorities were bound by the Customs classification adopted for countervailing duty and could reclassify the goods for denying proforma credit under Rule 56A.

Analysis: The classification adopted by the Customs authorities had attained finality and the goods had been assessed to countervailing duty on that basis. The Tribunal followed its earlier view that, once the proper Customs assessment had become final, the Central Excise authorities had no jurisdiction to reopen or reclassify the goods for the purpose of withdrawing consequential credit. The introduction of the second proviso to Rule 56A(2)(ii) did not confer any power to reclassify goods already assessed by Customs.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee; the Central Excise authorities were bound by the Customs classification and could not deny proforma credit on a fresh classification.

Issue (ii): Whether the show cause notice was barred by limitation in the absence of suppression or misstatement.

Analysis: The notice was issued well beyond six months from the relevant credits. Extended limitation could apply only on proof of wilful misstatement, collusion, or suppression of facts. The record showed that the import documents, bills of entry, D-3 forms, and registers were before the department, the goods were described as components, and the department itself had granted and acted upon the permission for proforma credit. On these facts, there was no material to establish suppression or misdeclaration.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee; the notice was barred by limitation.

Final Conclusion: The denial of proforma credit was set aside and the appeal succeeded because the departmental reclassification was without jurisdiction and the demand notice was time-barred.

Ratio Decidendi: Where Customs classification for countervailing duty has attained finality and the department is already in possession of the relevant import documents, the excise authorities cannot reopen that classification to deny consequential credit, and limitation cannot be extended in the absence of proved suppression or misstatement.

---