1998 (10) TMI 278

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Revenue has classified the product in the impugned order under Tariff Heading 94.03 as parts of filing cabinet whereas the appellants herein contend that kraft folders are covered by Tariff Heading 4818.90 and steel interlinking channels for those folders are covered by Tariff Heading 8505.00. 2. Whether the demand of duty for the period 1-10-1987 to 25-10-1989 treating the same as falling under Tariff Heading 94.03, as held by the adjudicating authority is barred by time or not. 2.1 Relevant facts for dealing with the aforesaid two questions are as follows :- 2.2 The appellants herein filed a classification list w.e.f. 1-3-1987 in respect of the two folders, namely, systems folders and latra folders under Tariff su....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....wilful misstatement or suppression of fact and consequently invoking larger period of five years under Section 11A. A demand of duty of Rs. 9,06,877.61 was also proposed to be recovered from the appellants. They were also asked to show cause as to why a penalty be not imposed on them for contravention of Rules 9(2) and 173Q. On adjudication, the Collector of Central Excise, Indore has upheld the classification of two parts together under Tariff Heading 94.03 as parts of other steel furniture and confirmed demand of Rs. 10,17,103.22 for the period 1-10-1987 to 25-10-1989. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/-. 2.4. Learned Consultant, Shri B.D. Pahwa for the appellants submits that the appellants had submitted the classification ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r to be not a part of visadax. It was treated to be classifiable under Chapter 48. 2.5. Apart from the foregoing, he submits that everything was within the knowledge of the department. Full declaration has been made in the classification lists. The classification lists had been duly checked by the Revenue authorities and thereafter the said lists had been approved. In these facts and circumstances he submits that question of wilful misstatement or suppression of facts, as found by the adjudicating authority, is not sustainable. He, therefore, prays for allowing the appeals. 3.1. Opposing the contentions, learned SDR, Shri A.K. Agarwal reiterates the findings of the adjudicating authority, as already set out above. He also dr....