HMT LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is a PSU manufacturing bulbs fluorescent lighting tubes, and parts thereof and Lead Glass in Flare and Exhaust. They had classified the said Lead Glass in Flare and Exhaust under Heading 7015.00 since 1988 and the Classification List was approved without any objection and were clearing the goods after paying duty as per the approved Classification Lists submitting R.T. 12 returns which were assessed without any remarks. A Show Cause Notice dated 23 -1 -95 was issued proposing that the classification list filed effective from 1 -3 -92 for Lead Glass in Flare and Exhaust approved under Heading 7015.00 was not correct, since those unit were found to be classifiable under Heading 7001.90 and duty under that heading was therefore recoverable. The longer period under the proviso to Section 11A was invoked alleging misdeclaration as follows: -

(2.) THE Collector vide the order impugned before us classified the goods under Heading 7001.90 and confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 21,37,325/ - for the period 1 -3 -92 to 28 -2 -94 being the differential duty and imposed a penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs under Rule 173Q read with Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules.

(3.) WHEN the matter was heard, ld. C.A. for the appellant submitted that they are not contesting the re -classification, but are only contesting the demand of duty to be barred by limitation, since the proviso clause to Section 11A could not be invoked in the facts of this case and they were contesting the imposition of penalty. After hearing both sides and considering the material it is found: -