TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 390
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nal No. 39266/2015 dated 26-6-2015. 2. Brief facts are that the appellant had filed 23 bills of entry for import of 'lauric acid', during the period March 2012 to August 2012, classifying the goods under tariff item 2915 7090 as 'other palmitic acid, stearic acid, their salts and esters', by claiming the benefit of Notification No. 46/2011-Cus. Revenue was of the view that lauric acid is classifiable under tariff item 2915 9090 and is assessable to duty as applicable for the goods at Sl. No.553 of Notification No. 21/2002. A show cause notice dated 8-8-2013 was issued by the Additional Commissioner of Customs (Gr-2) under section 28 (1) of the Customs Act 1962, alleging that the incorrect classification has resulted in short levy of duty....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....notice dated 18-8-2014 in respect of the 16 bills of entry which were a part of the first show cause notice, placing reliance on the decision of the tribunal in the case of Saraswathi Air Products Limited, 1998 (98) ELT 391 (Tribunal). It was alleged that on verification of the self-assessment made by the appellant, it revealed that the appellant has deliberately and willfully misclassified the correct CTH 2915 9090 to claim ineligible FTA benefit under Notification No. 46 of 2011, vide Serial No.299. The notice demanded duty of Rs.16,01,562/- with interest and proposed to impose mandatory penalty under section 114 (A) and/or 112(a) of the Act. The notice also proposed to confiscate the imported goods under section 111(m) of the Act. After ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the issue being debatable and involving interpretation, invocation of the extended period of limitation is impermissible in law. Reliance was placed on the decision in the case of Larson and Turbo limited Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, 2007 (211) ELT 513 (SC). 5. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel that by merely claiming classification under a particular tariff entry, the assessee cannot be held guilty of suppression or misstatement of facts. Reliance was placed on the decisions in CCE versus Ishaan Research Lab (P) Limited, 2008 (230) ELT 7 (SC) and Commissioner versus Ameya Foods, 2024 (388) ELT 411 (SC). 6. The Ld. Counsel submits that when the first show cause notice with respect to the import of lauric acid vide 23 shipp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mphasizes that the appellants were continuously importing the goods by proposing the classification adverted in the bills of entry and all the 23 bills of entry were cleared by the department. He submitted that invocation of extended period of limitation in such cases is impermissible in law. 9. The Ld. Counsel further submits, drawing attention to paragraph 5 of the second show cause notice, that that the notice does not provide the basis for such conclusion. Further, the adjudicating authority at para 15 of the impugned order has stated that he draws his conclusion from an authoritative source of HSN Explanatory notes, without revealing the source. That apart, the appellate authority has referred to a chemical dictionary that is i.e. H....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the tenability of the impugned order hinges on whether the second show cause notice could have invoked the extended period of limitation. 14. Admittedly, the appellant has been clearing these products declaring them as "Lauric Acid" and classifying them under the tariff item 29157090 and the fact that the first SCN lists all the 23 bills as well as the classification claimed by the appellant attests to this fact. While the earliest bill of entry that was sought to be covered in the first SCN is dated 31.03.2012, the said SCN has neither raised any allegation about wilful suppression or misstatement of facts on the part of the appellant nor invoked the provisions of Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 to cover the demand beyond the no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a conclusion of misstatement or wilful suppression of facts on the part of the importer, warranting invoking of the extended period of limitation. In the instant case the impugned order itself makes it evident that the classification issue involved is interpretational in nature In this regard, the reliance placed by the appellant on the decisions in CCE versus Ishaan Research Lab (P) Limited, 2008 (230) ELT 7 (SC) and Commissioner versus Ameya Foods, 2024 (388) ELT 411 (SC) is apposite. 17. Therefore, we are of the considered view that in the instant case the allegation of wilful suppression and misstatement of facts would not sustain against the appellant and the second SCN itself being wholly barred by limitation, the impugned order u....