2000 (4) TMI 338

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....03 & 1704/95 dated 18-9-95 which considered the classification of epoxy coils but rejected appellants claim for classification under CTH 8503 and availing exemption under Notification. No. 172/89 dated 27-5-1989. Custom House had classified these as insulated wires under 8544.11. Claim for shortages in goods received and claim for project imports were also rejected. The main ground for rejection of appeals was that appellants had claimed different classification in their Refund claims before original authority (rejected) and that in appeal before the Ld. Collector (A), the change in claimed classification had increased the duty refund sought significantly, despite the time bar of 6 months. The claim for shortages is also rejected on similar....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hat since goods were cleared a long time back, reclassification cannot be considered now in view of 1991 (55) E.L.T. 5 (S.C.). 7. We have carefully considered these submissions and records of the case. The Custom House had assessed the concerned Bs/E for the item viz. Expoxy insulated single turn half coils under CTH 8544.11 and Notification 134/86. Refund claims were submitted claiming classification under 8501.64/9801. Since goods were not electric generators (8501.64) therefore refunds were rejected in 1995 but without hearing them. In their appeal before Collector (Appeals) against rejection of these claims, appellants sought a new classification under 8503. As a result the Ld. Collector noted in the orders impugned that the gro....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....in 1988 (37) E.L.T. 478 (S.C.). In Indian Telephone Industries v. CC as in 1983 ECR 944, the Tribunal had similarly held that as no claim for reassessment of basic customs duty was made within 6 months, therefore an entirely new claim could not be made later. In view of these, it is our considered view, that the Ld. Collector (A) did not err in holding the matter as time barred before him as the new classification under 8503 before him was made much after the expiry of 6 months from the relevant date. There is also no infirmity in his findings that as no registration under Project Imports for these imports had been done, therefore Chapter 98 was also ruled out. The Ld. Collector had also rightly held that since goods were already cleared fr....