2000 (10) TMI 703

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mounting to Rs. 11,14,963.63 for the period from 14-3-1986 to 2-3-1987 by invoking the extended period of limitation under the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The show cause notice, for the purpose of such demand, alleged that the appellants had manufactured and cleared parts of material handling equipments at the lower rate of duty applicable to the complete equipments under Tariff sub-heading No. 8428.00 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule, instead of at the higher rate of duty applicable to parts of material handling equipments under TSH No. 8431.00. The show cause notice, for the purpose of invoking the extended period of limitation, alleged that the appellants had mis-classified th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... were classified under Tariff Item No. 68 of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff, which was in force up to 28-2-1986. Immediately after the new Central Excise Tariff came into effect on 1-3-1986, the appellants filed classification list with the Department claiming classification of material handling equipments viz. wagon tipper, reclaimer and conveyor under TSH 8428.00. In that classification list, the appellants had endorsed "LIST ENCLOSED" at the bottom of the description of the goods. The list so enclosed set out the manufacturing process chart for tipper and reclaimer. That chart, in turn, indicated the various parts manufactured by the appellants and the process undertaken by them so as to make them complete tippers. Thus, Counsel add....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....st, with the Department. The price list indicated the various parts manufactured by the appellants. Therefore, Counsel denied the allegation that any such contract was not placed before the Department. Ld. Advocate contended that there was neither any suppression of facts nor any misclassification of goods with intent to evade payment of duty, on the part of the assessee. He, therefore, pleaded for holding that the extended period of limitation was not invokable in the assessee's case and the entire demand of duty was time-barred. 5. Ld. Advocate further argued that, since the appellants have given correct description of the goods in the classification list, the allegation of suppression in the show cause notice was not sustainable.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....erial handling equipments, namely, tipper, reclaimer and conveyor under TSH 8428.00. That classification list was accompanied by "Manufacturing Procedure Chart for Tippers And Reclaimers" which furnished a list of various components for tippers and reclaimers. Copies of these documents are available on record before us. The classification list was duly approved by the Assistant Collector, which fact is not disputed before us. It appears from the description of the goods given in the classification list read with the above procedure chart enclosed with the classification list that the assessee had given correct description of the goods to the Department. Further, it is not disputed that the appellants filed monthly RT-12 returns and that the....