2001 (10) TMI 930

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Rules 9(2) and 173Q of C.E. Rules and also a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- on Cement Corporation of India (CCOI) under Rule 209A of C.E. Rules. The appeal of CCOI is not listed for hearing. The above appeal has been transferred to this Bench in terms of the order of the Hon'ble President on the request made by the appellants. 2. The appellants were alleged to have manufactured during the period 20-3-90 to 7-4-92 a total of 82,667 MTs of MS ducts and ducts supports falling under sub-heading No. 8421.00 of CET belonging to Cement Corporation of India vide their supply orders and contracts entered into by them for supply/erection/commissioning of electrostatic precipitator falling under sub-heading 8421.00 for the cement plant belonging to C....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....fication list and claimed the item to be falling under 7309.40 and had taken licence and got the classification list approved. However, he has taken a view that the function of the MS ducks had not been properly indicated in the classification list and it was only during investigation it was established that the item is essentially designed for functions/parts of electrostatic precipitator specifically classifiable under chapter sub-heading 84.21 of CET. He has taken a view that complete information had not been produced. Therefore, larger period was invokable and that 40 MS ducks were confiscable and penalty imposable. However, he has granted release of the goods on payment of fine. 4. We have heard Ld. Counsel Shri K.R. Natarajan ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he demands are barred by time. He also relied on the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of CCE v. Chemphar Drugs and Liniments as reported in 1989 (40) E.L.T. 276 and Bhor Industries v. CC as reported in 1989 (40) E.L.T. 280 and Padmini Products Ltd. v. CC as reported in 1989 (43) E.L.T. 195. 7. Ld. Counsel further submits that the item cannot be considered as a part of electrostatic precipitator without any expert opinion produced by the Department to show that the item is part of electrostatic precipitator for classification under chapter sub-heading 84.21. 8. Ld. SDR Shri Sree Kumar Menon, reiterated the departmental view and the findings given by the Collector of Central Excise in the order. 9. On a ....