2024 (10) TMI 63

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ppellant had imported "Surgical Microscope for Neurosurgery - Zeiss OPMI Pentero with accessories" from M/s. CEK Zeiss Meditec, Germany against Bill of Entry No.6464935 dated 05.04.2012 for their own use declared its classification under CTH 90189099 and claimed benefit of concessional rate of duty under Sl.No.473 of No.12/2012-Cus dated 17.03.2012 as amended. The Bill of Entry has been assessed and cleared as declared by the appellant. Later the Department issued a show-cause notice on 08.04.2013 alleging that the classification declared by the appellant is incorrect and the correct classification should be under CTH 90118000 and the benefit of the said Notification accordingly is inadmissible to the appellant. Consequently, it was propose....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ved in the present appeal is whether penalty is imposable on the appellant for wrong declaration of the classification of the goods and also benefit of Notification No.12/2012-Cus dated 17.03.2012 in their Bill of Entry dated 05.04.2012. 7. We find that the appellant had disclosed the description of the goods in their Bill of Entry as "Surgical Microscope for Neurosurgery - Zeiss OPMI Pentero with accessories" claiming the classification under CTH 90189099 along with benefit of Notification as per interpretation of the respective entry as understood by them. The Department, after accepting the classification accordingly assessed the goods and later, came to the conclusion that the classification declared by the appellant is not correct a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lant during the course of assessment, therefore, it is the responsibility of the Department to ascertain from the catalogue and description its classification under the appropriate heading. This Tribunal has consistently held that once the description of the goods is correctly disclosed, wrong classification of the said goods on the basis of description cannot be the basis for invoking extended period of limitation. Also, it has been held in a series of cases that merely because the goods are not classified correctly under the appropriate heading by an assessee even though all facts are disclosed to the Department, the allegation of misdeclaration or suppression of fact cannot be invoked for recovery of duty for the past period. In our view....