TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (3) TMI 505
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nagar. The appellant Mr. MadhuKumar A. Mehta is Managing Director of Anjaleem Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. The software for the said STD-PCO was developed and recorded by the appellant on Medium/Memory Chips or EPROMs (Erasable, Programmable Read only Memory). The unrecorded medium (EPROM) was purchased by the appellant and the program for the STD-PCO was recorded thereof. The STD-PCO was classifiable under CETH No. 8517.00 which covered Electrical Apparatus for line telephony. As regards the EPROMs, the appellant had bona fide belief that since the same was Recorded Media (i.e. media recorded with software), the same was correctly classifiable that recorded media under CETH 8524.90 and was exempted from Central Excise duty under Notification No. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... At Tribunal stage, it was held against the appellant in that case, which was reported at ANJALEEM ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.VS. CCE 2001(137) ELT 1190. The said decision of the Tribunal was upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court has reported in ANJALEEM ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. VS. CCE-2006 (194) ELT 129(SC). The Adjudication Authority after considering the Appellant's reply passed order dated 28.11.2008, whereby confirmed the charges made in the Show Cause Notice and also confirmed the demand and imposed penalty, personal penalty was also imposed on Mr. Madhukumar A. Mehta under Rule 209-A. Being aggrieved by the Order in Appeal the appellant filed the present appeal. The appellant in the present appeal only raise the ground of limitation as the merit h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lassification and involved interpretation of law. For this reason also neither larger period is invocable nor is the penalty imposable. In support of her submission, she placed reliance on the following judgments: * Anjaleem Enterprises P. Ltd v CCE-2001 (137) ELT 1190 * Anjaleem Enterprises P. Ltd v CCE-2006 (194) ELT 129 (SC) * Anjaleem Enterprises P. Ltd v CCE 2002 (140) E.L.T. 163 * CCE v Harish Industries Engineers-2008 (223) ELT 651 * Brakes India Ltd v CCE-1999 (111) ELT 38. * Kusum Ingots & Alloys v CCE-2001 (137) ELT 550 * National Organic Chemical Indus Ltd v CC-2000 (126) ELT 1072 * Upheld in commissioner v National Organic Chemical Indus Ltd-2002 (142) ELT A280 (SC) * Tata Oil Mills co v CCE-1996 (88) ELT 463 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case reported at ANJALEEM ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. VS. CCE-2006 (194) ELT 129(SC) decided the matter against the appellant. The limited issue to be decided in the present appeal is by that whether demand of duty raised in the Order In Original and upheld in the impugned order is time bar or otherwise. In this regard I find that the commissioner (Appeals) rejected the claim on time bar submitted by the appellant before him on the ground that the issue of time bar was raised first time before the Commissioner (Appeals). It is a settled law that issue of limitation can be raised at any stage, being a mixed question of law and facts. Therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) order on limitation is incorrect and illegal. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e real value of the product. Now, the classification list filed by the appellant for the years from 1988 claiming classification of the product under Heading 85.24 with the benefit of Notification 84/89 had been approved by the department. The Department was therefore fully aware that the appellant claimed classification of the goods differently from the main machine in which it was fitted. The relevant information required for assessment therefore had not been suppressed; nor could it be said in these circumstances that there was an intention to evade payment of duty. There can be no evasion since the goods were removed in pursuance of an approved classification list. The demand for this part of the period would therefore be barred by limi....