TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 1042
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gaged in the business of sales and supplies of perfume and scent sprays of various brand names such as Denver, Envy, Force, Hamilton, Honour and Noir. 3. A show cause notice dated 04.07.2022 was issued to the appellant under section 28(4) of the Customs Act alleging wrong classification of the items imported by the appellant and demanding differential duty with interest and penalty. 4. The description of the items imported by the appellant the Customs Tariff Item [CTI] declared by the appellant and the CTI proposed by the department are reproduced below: S.No. Item Description CTI declared by appellant CTI by department 1 Empty Plastic Container (Packing Material for Cosmetic) 39231090 96161020 2 Empty Perfume Bottle/Container 39233090 96161020 3 Plastic Cap 39235090 96161020 4 Actuator/empty Plastic Container/white Insert/Insert Orifice 39269099 96161020 5 Empty Glass Bottle of Vibrant Colours/ Coting Bottle + Gold Hotstamping 70109000 96161020 6 Metal Ring 73269099 96161020 7 Metal Ring 76169990 96161020 8 Metal Ring 83099090 96161020 9 Actuator 84249000 9....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the demand on merits contended that the extended period of limitation could not be invoked in the facts and circumstances of the case. The appellant pointed out that the dispute pertained to classification of the goods and the classification resorted to by the importer was based on his own understanding and merely because the department may have a different opinion on classification would not mean that the extended period of limitation could be invoked. The appellant also pointed out when the past Bills of Entry for the period 2017-2020 were filed, no objection was raised by the officers regarding classification of the goods. The Commissioner, however, held that the extended period of limitation was correctly invoked and the relevant findings are reproduced below: "9.3 On plain reading of the above said clause of Section 28 of the Act, I observe that for invocation of extended period of demand, either of ingredients i.e. collusion or any wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts must be present. In the present case, the Noticee is engaged in the business of perfumery as is evident from the end use data submitted by them in DRI office and has claimed more than 50 years ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssion by mis-declaring the classification of the impugned goods as discussed above. xxx xxx xxx 9.5 In view of the above, it is apparent that the Noticee has resorted to mis-declaration at various stages by classifying the same items under different CTH in different bills of entry at different occasion to claim lower rate of duty. The importer noticee claiming incorrect classification and changing classification of goods to suit payment of lower duty shows mis-declaration with intention to evade payment of appropriate duty. Therefore, this is a fit case for invocation of extended period of limitation." (emphasis supplied) 7. Shri Karan Chandna, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that not only had the appellant declared the correct classification of the goods imported, but even otherwise the extended period of limitation could not have been invoked in the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. Shri M.K. Shukla, learned authorized representative appearing for the department, however, supported the findings recorded by the Commissioner on the extended period of limitation. 9. On 28.01.2026, the Bench reserved orders only on the issue of invocati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fore, not open to the Commissioner to examine this fact when the show cause notice had not called upon the appellant to show cause on this aspect. 14. The impugned order has also placed reliance upon the statement made by the importer and the Customs Broker under section 108 of the customs. These statements could not have been relied upon as the procedure contemplated under section 138B of the Customs Act had not been followed. In this connection, reliance can be placed on the decision of this Tribunal in M/s Surya Wires Pvt. Ltd. vs. Principal Commissioner, CGST, Raipur- Excise Appeal No. 51148 of 2020 decided on 01.04.2025. 15. The decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad v. M/s. Urmin Products P. Ltd. & Others- 2024(388) E.L.T. 418 S.C., on which reliance has been placed by the learned authorized representative of the department, does not come to the aid of the department. This was a case where the assessee had deliberately changed the classification to change advantage of lower rates of duties by very clearly drafting the letter without giving any details of the product which they were manufacturing at the material time. This apart, ....