TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1667
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g dissatisfied with the reply of the party, Revenue issued a show cause notice dated 26.07.2016 to the appellant proposing classification of "greenhouses" under CTH 9406 0011 instead of 8419 8960 and demanding the differential Central Excise Duty of Rs. 2,67,667/- under Section 11 A(4) along with interest under Section 11AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Section 11AC(1)(c) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 1.1 The Assistant Commissioner vide order-in-original dated 18.05.2017 held classification of goods under CTH 94060011, confirmed the differential duty of Rs. 2,67,667/- along with interest and imposed equal penalty on the appellant. Aggrieved with this order, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) challenging mainly classification of their product under CTH 9406 0011 and invocation of extended period in the matter. After considering the submissions of the appellant, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order dated 8th February, 2018 upheld the findings of the Assistant Commissioner and rejected their appeal. Hence, the present appeal. 2. In the present appeal, the appellant took the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing classification under CTH 8419. Monthly returns were filed in time. Since entire facts including classification of goods were in the knowledge of the department, invocation of extended period is not justified and the demands which are barred by limitation, are liable to be quashed and set aside. * Penalty is wrongly imposed on them in the facts of the case. It is settled law that when issue is pertaining to classification of a product, no penalty can be imposed. 3. During arguments, learned Advocate Shri Nirav Shah mentioned that the appellant sent several letters to the departmental authorities on 05.04.2013, 29.10.2013, 10.05.2013 & 28.05.2013 seeking classification on dutiability of Greenhouse, but no reply was received. He placed reliance on the decision of CESTAT in the case of M/s Pranav Vikas (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., New Delhi reported at 2002 (148) E.L.T. 963 (Tri. - Del.) and M/s Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Mumbai reported at 1999 (106) E.L.T. 501 (Tribunal). Learned Advocate also relied on two decisions of CESTAT in the case of M/s Sriroz Consultants Pvt Ltd reported at 2012 (27) STR 277 and 2018 (8) GSTL 276 to plead th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rrigation Systems Ltd Vs. Commr. of C. Ex. & ST, Alwar reported at 2018 (14) GSTL 286 (Tri.-Delhi) to plead his case. He prays that the impugned order be upheld by setting aside the above appeal of the party. 5. We have heard both sides. We find that in ER-1 returns for the disputed period, appellant has mentioned description of goods as "green", classified them under CTH 84198960 and availed concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 4/2014-CE. 5.1 In this case, appellant has classified goods under CTH 8419 8960 which covers "Plant growth chambers and rooms and tissue culture chambers and rooms having temperature, humidity or light control." Revenue on the other hand claims it's classification under CTH 9406 0011. The heading CTH 9406 is reproduced as under :- Tariff Item Description of goods unit Rate of duty (1) (2) (3) (4) 9406 Prefabricated Buildings 9406 00 - Prefabricated Buildings --- Green houses: 9406 00 11 ---- Green house- in ready to assemble sets u 8% 9406 00 19 ---- other u 8% --- other: &nb....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Limited Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. & S.T., Alwar reported 2018 (14) GSTL 286 (Tri.- Del.), which held that the product is classifiable under CTH 9406 0011. The relevant para of the said decision is reproduced below:- "12. The tariff entry 9406 00 11 covers the green houses in ready to assemble sets. It stands established that the supply which has been made is for green houses in ready to assemble condition. Such goods are specifically covered under the above tariff heading. 13. After careful examination of the entire case, we are convinced that the goods cleared by the appellant are classifiable under TI 9406 00 11 as green houses in ready to assemble sets and liable for payment of excise duty during the period under dispute. Such Central Excise duty is required to be paid on the entire value of the green houses i.e. including the value of both the components fabricated in the factory as well as those procured from outside. However, the appellant will be entitled to the benefit of Cenvat credit on goods procured from outside subject to verification of such entitlement on the basis of documents to be produced by the appellant. The Adjudicating Authority will allow....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is filed. Section 201 (3) was further amended on 28.08.2012 where a common period of 7 years was prescribed irrespective of whether or not above statement of tax deducted was filed. In 2014, Section 201 (3) of the Act was amended w.e.f. 01.10.2014 by which, time limit provided under section 201(3)(ii) of the Act for passing order under section 201(1) of the Act came to be extended by one year and it also provides that no orders shall be made under sub-section (1) holding a person to be in default for failure to deduct whole or part of the tax from a person resident in India at any time after expiry of seven years from the end of the financial year in which payment is made or credit is given. In this backdrop, Hon'ble High Court observed that whenever this section has been amended, date was specified to make the provisions of the Section effective. For example, when amendment was made on 28.05.2012, it was specifically made applicable w.e.f. 01.04.2010. Since in the amendment made in 2014 no such date of effectiveness has been mentioned, so the amended provisions will take only prospective effect. 5.6 We further find that Cestat Hyderabad has dealt with similar issue in a customs....