2026 (7) TMI 1559

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s. 2. The issue of classification of "Wireless Bluetooth Earphones/Earbuds/ Headphones/Headsets" is the subject matter of present dispute. The appellants had classified the said goods under Tariff Item 8517 6290 and claimed the benefit of duty exemption provided under Notification No. 57/2017-Cus. dated 30.06.2017. However, the Department had changed the classification of the said goods under Tariff Item No. 8518 3000/ 8518 3011 and denied the benefit of duty exemption claimed by the appellants. The appellants have assailed the impugned order mainly on the ground that the show-cause proceedings are barred by limitation of time. In this context, it is stated that classification claimed by the appellants was decided by Coordinate Bench at ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lassification held by the Department under Tariff Item 8518 3000/ 8518 3011. However, Delhi Bench though had accepted the classification claimed by the Department, but dropped the confirmed demand, holding that the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked, justifying proposed recovery action beyond the normal period provided in the statute. 4. In the present case, the period of dispute in respect of Appeal No. C/86271/202025 is from 07.02.2018 to 03.02.2020 and in respect of Appeal No. C/86275/2025, the period is from 09.03.2019 to 30.03.2022. In both the cases, show-cause notices were issued on 03.02.2023 and 22.07.2024 respectively. The provisions for invocation of extended period are contained in Section 28 of the Customs Act, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f the Tribunal in the case of G-Mobile Devices Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has accepted the classification as claimed by the Department, but dropped the demand on the ground of limitation, holding as under: - "41. The issue is about classification of the goods. According to the appellant, the goods are classifiable under CTI 8517 62 90 of the Customs Tariff Act whereas according to the department, the goods would be classifiable under CTI 8518 30 00. The issue that arises for consideration is as to whether the extended period of limitation can be invoked in a case where the appellant believes that the goods are classifiable under one particular CTI, but the department believes that the goods are classifiable under some other CTI. The case of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ected the Registry to place the appeal records before the Hon'ble President for constitution of a Larger Bench to decide the classification issue involved in the present appeal. 7. Under the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the view that the bonafides' of the appellants are proved that owing to different interpretation placed by the judicial forum on classification of subject goods, they had claimed the classification under tariff item 8517 6290 and the resultant benefit provided under the notification dated 30.06.2017. Therefore, it is our considered view, that there is no element of collusion or any willful mis-statement or suppression of facts inasmuch as the issue in hand entirely involves interpretation of the ....