TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (4) TMI 58
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2,71,874/- against M/s. Unifax System Ltd. along with imposition of penalty of identical amount. In addition, penalties stand imposed upon other applicants. 2. After hearing both sides, we find that during the period 2007-2010 appellant M/s. Unifax imported various information technology goods including Facsimile machines from M/s. Panasonic Asia Pacific Pte Ltd., Singapore. They declared the said goods as falling under Customs Tariff Heading 8443 32 60, which provides nil rate of duty. However, subsequent to the clearance of goods, investigations were initiated and a view was entertained that the goods are properly classifiable under heading 88433 39 70 which attracts duty at the rate of 7.5%. Such view was entertained on the ground that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....A or Section 112(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. 88. It has been alleged in the show cause notice that the noticee importers were fully aware of the scheme of classification and the duty liability on the imported goods. Therefore, they were aware of the fact that the machines having no connectivity feature are not liable to be classifiable claiming NIL rate of duty. This was willfully done to evade payment of Customs duty. 89. I have considered both the points. I do find some force in the argument that as an importer, an input received from the supplier is also an important factor which may have influenced their decision with regard to cla....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....plicitor ground that the appellant is a regular importer and as such, should have been familiar with various aspects of classification of the goods. It is well settled law that for invoking the longer period of limitation, there should be some positive act on the part of the assessee to suppress the information, which is required to be given by him or to mis-state some facts, with an intention to evade payment of duty. Similarly there is plethora of judgments laying down that where the assessee has claimed the classification under a particular head, the Revenue authorities are at liberty to call for more information, if required and in such cases, the assessee cannot be held guilty of suppression. 5. In the present case, the appellant plac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... relevant para in his order-in-appeal No. 288-289/2013-Cus/Commr(A)/AHD dated 29.4.2013. 9.1 On the question of limitation, I have found discussed the same in detail in the stay order, supra. To recapitulate, I find that the issue of classification was complex and had already been raised by the field formation in 2009 itself. It is revealed from records that the appellants were not given benefit of lower duty since June 2009. In other words, the question whether the classification would be under CTSH 84433970 or anywhere else, is a highly technical issue. In a case, where even department was not sure about correct classification. I cannot uphold charge of suppression or fraud against an importer. Further, in the Circular No. 5/92-CX4 dated....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nts [1989 (40) ELT 276 (SC)], wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that for making the demand of duty sustainable beyond the period of six months, it has to be established that the duty was not levied or paid or short-levied or short-paid of erroneously refunded by reasons of either fraud or collusion or wilful misstatement or suppression of facts or contravention of any provision of the Act or Rules made there under, with intent to evade payment 9.3 Since the present case is the one where there was no clarification on the issue of classification and benefit of exemption notification and that it is not a case where the appellant had misdeclared the goods, it would not be appropriate to invoke extended period. In a similar case, but r....