TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1999 (12) TMI 642
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....transmission directions. In the year 1986, they filed a classification list seeking approval of this product under Tariff Heading 85.42 attracting basic duty @ 15% ad valorem (although the product was not in production by then). It was approved accordingly; however, no clearances were effected on the basis of this list. Subsequently they filed another classification list No. 10/88-89 inter alia for PCM-MUX under Chapter Heading 85.29 on 4-10-1989, effective from 1-11-1988. The item was shown to be covered by Tariff description "parts suitable for use solely or principally with the apparatus of Heading 85.25 to 85.28". The description of 13 components/parts mentioned separately followed the name of PCM-MUX in the above classification list. C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 3 of the classification list No. 10/88-89 remained under dispute, on 28-9-1990, the Assistant Collector ordered provisional assessment of the goods covered by this classification list, show cause notice was issued on 28-9-1990 and it was adjudicated vide order dated 18-12-1990 by which the classification was approved under Chapter Heading 85.17 attracting duty @ 20% ad valorem (BED) + 5% of BED as SED. The appellants accepted this classification and started paying duty accordingly on PCM-MUX. 3. In view of the fact that PCM-MUX was removed by the appellants on payment of duty at the rate applicable to goods covered by Chapter Heading 85.29 instead of at the higher rate applicable against Chapter Heading 85.17, a show cause notice dat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e appellants and hence the CL approved for parts does not cover the suppliers of PCM-MUX equipment falling under Heading 85.17 which the appellants have accepted as the correct classification, as evident from the fact that the classification for PCM-MUX assembly was decided under Heading 85.17 vide adjudication order dated 18-12-1990 which has not been appealed against by the assessees and has thus become final. Therefore, the charge and finding that the complete equipment/ assembly/sub-assembly was cleared in the guise of parts requires to be upheld. The appellants misdeclared the goods in the classification list with intent to evade payment of duty at the higher rate applicable to goods, falling under Heading 85.17 and hence the extended ....