1997 (8) TMI 328

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ays, Government of India engaged in the manufacture of Diesel Shunters. The appellants are also manufacturing Diesel Engines which are mainly and primarily being used by them captively in the manufacture of Diesel Shunters. Diesel Shunters are classifiable under the erstwhile Tariff Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. In respect of the Diesel Engines, the appellants had filed a Classification List dated 23-4-1979 before the proper officer in terms of Rule 173B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, classifying the same as falling under Tariff Item 29(ii) attracting basic duty of excise @ 5.5% ad valorem. The said Classification List was made effective from 1-4-1978. While computing the assessable value of the Shunters manufactured by the appe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ded in the value of the Shunters, should be higher for the differential duty between the two items falling under T.I. 29(i) and 29(ii). Accordingly, an amount of Rs. 2,46,358.95 was proposed to be confirmed against the appellants herein, by invoking the larger period of limitation. It was alleged in the show cause notice that the appellants at the time of filing of Classification List, failed to disclose the fact that such Engines were designed for use as prime mover for transport vehicles and had been given for that purpose, some special shape, size or quality. It was further alleged that the appellants having sufficient expertise knowledge had wilfully suppressed the material fact that Diesel Engines which were designed as prime mover for....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....om the Department. In the circumstances, there was no justification for invoking the larger period of limitation. 6. Countering the arguments, Shri T. Prem Kumar, learned SDR for the respondent Commissioner, submitted that it was the appellants' duty to disclose the entire facts in the Classification List. He, further, contended that as the appellants were having the technical knowledge that the said Diesel Engines were further used in the manufacture of Diesel Shunters and that in view of this, the same should have been classified by them under T.I. 29(i), therefore, the longer period had been rightly invoked by the authorities below. 7. We have considered the submissions and have gone through the impugned order. The classi....