TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1984 (2) TMI 345
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Cooling Towers which prior to 1-3-1975 when the Tariff Item 68 was introduced, was non-excisable. The cooling tower in question was a device to cool water and oil from high temperature to approximately in the Wet Bulb Temperature of the atmospheric air. The Cooling Tower consists of its body, fan blades etc. and for the purpose of making it a complete unit, electric motors are fitted into it before these were cleared from the factory. The appellants had contended that the blade assemblies fitted with the Cooling Towers were 'parts' of the complete unit and, therefore, these parts could not be separately classified under Tariff Item No. 33(2). The appellants say that they declared these items under Sr. No. 5 of the Form-1 in the Classificati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Steel Co., Calcutta v. Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta - 1984 (15) E.L.T. 211. 4. It has been well settled now that Rule 9(2) of Central Excise Rules would be attracted only if there was a 'clandestine' removal of excisable goods from the factory. The burden of proving, that the removal was surreptitious or clandestine, is on the Excise authorities. 5. The Departmental Representative has contended that the demand for the Central Excise duty was not time-barred. He referred to the classification list in which the goods have been described as "Atmospheric forced and induced draft cooling towers and their components." He argued that declaration of these items as "components" of cooling towers amounted to mis-declaration. When....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cise Officer should take proper care and caution while approving the classification list so that a situation like the present does not arise. Having approved the classification list, it would not be proper for the department after considerable lapse of time to turn round and put the blame on the assessee. Even if we accept Shri Bhatia's argument that there was mis-statement, then also the rule that will be applicable would be Rule 10 read with Rule 173J under which the period of limitation was one year. On the material available we are not satisfied that appellants can be charged with having cleared the goods in a surreptitious or clandestine manner. Rule 9(2) would, therefore, not be attracted in the case. 6. One more question advanc....