2025 (7) TMI 631

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ant Commissioner confirming the demand of central excise duty under section 11A(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 [the Central Excise Act] and has, therefore, rejected the appeal filed by the appellant. 2. A communication dated June 30, 2025 has been sent on behalf of the appellant mentioning therein that the appellant does not wish to attend the personal hearing and the appeal may be decided on the basis of the submissions and citations made in the memorandum of appeal. 3. Accordingly, the memorandum of appeal has been perused and Shri Ratnesh Kumar Mishra, learned authorized representative appearing for the Department, has been heard. 4. The adjudicating authority has confirmed the demand by exercising the powers under section 11A(4) ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., within 5 years, therefore find no substance in the Appellant's contention that the demand raised is hit by time limitation. I observe that the evasion of duty by the Appellant has surfaced out of the Departmental Audit carried out by the officers of Central Excise department. Had the officers of Audit team not taken up the audit, the evasion of Central Excise duty would have remained unnoticed. I also find that the Appellant neither before the Original Authority nor in their present appeal have adduced any evidence to refute the allegations of wilfully suppressing the entire facts from the department about the clearance to related party and also not done the correct valuation with intent to evade payment of Central Excise duty. Theref....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....i - (2023) 2 Centax 62 (Tri.-Del)  and it was held that the goods would merit classification under CIT 8471 41 90 as claimed by the respondent of this appeal and not under CIT 8528 52 00 as claimed by the department, though in the present appeal the department has claimed the classification under CTI 8528 59 00. 8. Though this decision of the Tribunal was cited before the Principal Commissioner, but after having noted so, the Principal Commissioner has arrived at his own finding that the product imported by the respondent would merit classification under CTI 8471 41 90. 9. This finding of the Principal Commissioner is in accordance with the decision of the Tribunal rendered in Ingram Micro. 10. The grounds of appeal do not distingui....