TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (2) TMI 153
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....771227 and 4771244 both dated 31.03.2016 claiming classification under CTH 90229030 and availing concessional rate of duty in terms of Notification No.12/2012 (Sl.No.473) and No.21/2012 (Sl.No.95). On completion of the investigation by SIIB a show cause notice dated 30.11.2017 was issued to the appellant-importer seeking to reject the assessment claimed by them and reclassifying it as 'True Beam Accelerator and other equipment' separately as follows: Item Description Revised Customs Tariff Heading Linear Accelerator True Beam (High Energy Linear Accelerator "True Beam" With all Medical accessories 9022 14 90 ARIA Oncology Information System (For Linear Accelerator CLINAC IX Medical Equipment) 8471 30 90 Eclipse Treatment Planni....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act whereas Section 4 is more relevant and reads as under: "4. Where a machine (including a combination of machines) consists of individual components (whether separate or interconnected by piping, by transmission devices, by electric cables or by other devices) intended to contribute together to a clearly defined function covered by one of other headings in Chapter 84 or Chapter 85, then the whole falls to be classified in the heading appropriate to that function." He submits that vide Chapter Note 3 to Chapter 90 the above provision is made applicable to goods falling under Chapter 90 also. 4. Learned Counsel further submits that it was wrong on the part of the department to classify the equi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... alleging that the goods were cleared on self-assessment and same is factually wrong. The appellant-importer submitted representations dated 29.03.2016, 04.04.2016 and 09.05.2016 that the goods are examined in detail before the classification was finally approved; this being the case, the assessment cannot be called asself-assessment. The department has initially cleared the goods and later taken a different view and therefore no suppression can be invoked as there is no misdeclaration on the part of the appellant-importer. He relies upon the decisions in the case of Northern Plastic Ltd. Vs. CCCE 1998 (101) ELT 549 (S.C.) and Komal Trading Company Vs. CC (Import), Mumbai - 2014 (301) ELT 506 (Tri.-Mumbai); the department was very much awar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h dated 31.03.2016, would be classifiable under CTH 90229030 along with apparatus as claimed by the importer or the main instrument to be classified under 90221490 as 'other equipment' under different heading as proposed by the SCN and confirmed by the Learned Adjudicating Authority. We also find that the appellant-importers have argued on the issue of limitation. 10. We find that the show cause notice alleges that the assessments initially were made by the appellant-importer by wrongly claiming the exemption notification and mis declaring the classification of the goods and therefore extended period is rightly invokable. However, it is a fact that they have filed Bill of Entry on line. However, ongoing through the records of the case, it ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e factual position in the case, we find that the argument of the department that this is a case of self-assessment is factually incorrect. We find that though the appellant-importer has filed the Bill of Entry in the EDI system goods were subjected to open examination and the proper officer has examined the goods and forwarded it to the concerned group for assessment. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the Bills of Entry were subjected to self-assessment. This being the case, it is not open for the department to issue show cause notice invoking longer period and that too alleging suppression, misdeclaration etc. with intent to evade payment of duty. 13. We find that Ld. Counsel for the importer (appellant) rightly submits tha....