1998 (5) TMI 199 - AT - Central Excise

Classification dispute resolved unfavorably, time limitation benefits appellant. Appeal disposed.

TOSHNIWAL INSTRUMENTS (INDIA) LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF C. EX., PUNE

The Tribunal held that parts and accessories of scientific instruments were not covered by Notification 46/88, resulting in the dismissal of the ... Classification - Demand - Limitation Issues: Classification of goods under Tariff Heading, Applicability of Notification 46/88-C.E., Time limitation for demand of dutyClassification of Goods under Tariff Heading:The appellant submitted a classification list approving the classification of parts and accessories of scientific instruments under Tariff Heading 9027, duly approved by the authorities. However, a show cause notice alleged a short levy based on the claim that the parts and accessories should have been classified under sub-heading 9033.00, which carries a higher duty rate. The notice was later corrected to state that the parts and accessories should be under Chapter Heading 90.27, and Notification 46/88 was not applicable to them. The lower appellate authorities upheld the demand of duty, leading to the appeal by the appellant.Applicability of Notification 46/88-C.E.:The appellant argued that Notification 46/88, dated 1-3-1988, should apply to parts and accessories of scientific instruments based on Chapter Note 2(b) of Chapter 90 of the schedule to CETA, 1985. The consultant contended that the corrigendum changing the applicability of the notification was a significant alteration and urged that the demand of duty should be set aside or confirmed only from a specific date. The respondent, however, maintained that the notification applied only to instruments and apparatus, not their parts and accessories.Time Limitation for Demand of Duty:The issue of time limitation for the demand of duty was raised, with the consultant arguing that the corrigendum changing the applicability of the notification marked a crucial shift in the claim against the appellant. The Tribunal agreed with the consultant that the demand of duty could only be for the six months preceding the corrigendum date, and any demand prior to that would be time-barred. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant on this aspect, limiting the liability accordingly.In conclusion, the Tribunal determined that the parts and accessories of scientific instruments were not covered by Notification 46/88, leading to the dismissal of the appellant's appeal on the classification issue. However, the Tribunal sided with the appellant on the time limitation for the demand of duty, restricting the liability to the period following the corrigendum date and barring any claims prior to that date. The appeal was disposed of based on these findings.