TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (5) TMI 208
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e-barred. The present appeal of the Revenue is against Commissioner's decision on the limitation issue. In Final Order No. 1661/2001 dated 11-9-2001, [2002 (139) E.L.T. 423 (T)] this Bench had dismissed the appeal. The department took the order to the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 5323/2002, which was allowed by remand as per order dated 24-1-2003 [2003 (153) E.L.T. 496 (S.C.)] wherein the apex Court set aside the order of the Tribunal and directed the Tribunal to decide as to the applicability of the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act to the facts of the case. Hence the Revenue's appeal before us again. 2. Certain facts need to be recollected. The respondent was engaged in the manufacture of cast articles of iron....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....round that the classification list filed by the assessee did not mention cast articles of chromium and therefore the Commissioner's finding that they had not suppressed anything before the department is factually erroneous. The grounds of the appeal refer to the respondent's letter dated 19-1-94 wherein they had intimated to the department that they were engaged in the manufacture of steel castings since February 1982; that the constituents of the castings were carbon, nickel, manganese, sulphur, phosphorus, silicon, chromium, columbium, titanium, molybdenum, copper and vanadium; that 75% of their production was without nickel and chromium and the balance 25% with nickel and chromium. According to the department, in respect of this 25% of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....material fact with intent to evade payment of duty. 4. Ld. Counsel submitted that the chemical composition of the castings in question had, in fact, been furnished along with the classification list. In this connection, he referred to page 4 of the paper book filed by the respondents, which indicated that the chemical composition had also been made known to the department at the stage of filing of classification list. Nothing was concealed by the respondent. The classification list was approved. RT 12 returns were assessed, whereby the assessee's claim that the goods in question were classifiable as stainless steel castings falling under SH 7325.30 stood once again accepted. It was further pointed out by ld. Counsel that even exact ch....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nder the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act was invocable against the respondent for demanding duty of excise on articles of chromium cleared by them during the period of dispute. It has been emphatically argued by ld. Counsel that as the classification lists filed by them for the said period were approved by the department, the allegation of 'suppression of fact with intent to evade payment of duty' is not tenable. The goods in question were -declared as stainless steel castings and classified under SH 7325.30 in the relevant classification list and the same was approved by the proper officer of Central Excise. Nevertheless, the adjudicating authority classified the goods under SH 8112.00. This classification determined by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....5 The appellant has not successfully rebutted the respondent's contention that the chemical composition of the goods in question was also furnished by them along with classification list to the department. It appears from the above data that the castings in question were composed of carbon, manganese, sulphur, phosphorus, silicon, chromium, nickel and molybdenum and that all these elements together constituted less than 50% by weight of the goods. Had the department wanted to dispute the percentage of chromium reported by the assessee, they could have drawn samples of the goods at the appropriate stage and got them tested by their own chemical examiner. This was not done. On ....