S. Duggal, Member (J)

1. The proceedings, culminating in the impugned order of the Collector (Appeals), Calcutta, emanated from two notices of short-levy demand, having been issued upon the appellants herein, covering two imports made by separate Bills of Entry. The first notice, bearing the date 12-6-1981, was in relation to the goods cleared by Bill of Entry No. 1-752 dated 15-12-1980; whereas the second notice, issued on 3-11-1981, was in respect to goods covered by Bill of Entry No. 1-404 dated 10-9-1979. Both the consignments had been cleared initially, after assessment of duty at the rate of 40% plus 5% in terms of Notification No. 154/79-Cus., dated 4-7-1979, on the basis of declaration of the goods as : 'Raw wool from other animal hair'. The Department subsequently came to entertain the view that these goods were classifiable under heading 53.01/05(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, and as such, not entitled to the benefit of Exemption Notification No. 154/79.

2. It appears that, in the first instance, demand was made in relation to the later Bill of Entry, and after the appellants while filing reply to the said show cause notice, submitted by way of evidence of the departmental practice, earlier Bill of Entry of 1979; the second notice pertaining to that was also issued. The notices having been contested, were first adjudicated by the Assistant Collector of Customs who held that sub-heading No. (2) of heading No. 53.01/05 of the C.T.A. covered only 'wool raw and wool tops' ; by which one understood fine hair such as from the Alpacen sheep and goats, and that the subject-goods, being of the nature of 'Kid Mohair Wool' which was from the hair of Angora Goat, could not be treated within the category of 'wool' as contemplated by T.I. 53.01/05(2) and would, on the other hand, be classifiable under sub-heading (1) of the same entry, to which goods the Exemption Notification No. 154/79 did not extend.

3. The Collector (Appeals) confirmed the view taken by the Assistant Collector, and dismissed the appeal filed before him.

4. In the present appeal, filed before the Tribunal under Section 129A (1) of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as Act), the appellants while reiterating their plea on facts as to the nature of the imported goods, and the real scope of the term 'wool' etc., have, at the outset, taken up the objection as to the notices of demand being barred by time, having been served beyond normal time limit of six months, as permissible under Section 28 of the Act. They plead that they had imported two consignments of 'Scoured Kid Mohair Wool', and had amplified in the Bills of Entry that the goods were 'Raw wool from other animal hair' which declaration was accepted when the goods were cleared from Customs custody and duty paid accordingly and, as such, there was no mis-declaration or suppression of facts, and no justification for applying the extended period of limitation.

5. When the appeal was taken up for hearing on earlier occasions, Shri N.C. Sogani invited attention of the Bench to this contention of the appellants as to both the notices being barred by time. In regard to the objection taken by the S.D.R.-Shri K. Chandramouli at the time-that this point, having not been urged before either of the lower authorities, could not now be permitted to be a argued, the Bench observed during the hearing held on 19-6-1985 that the appellants having placed before us whatever evidence in this respect was available with them, it was considered expedient in the interest of justice, to permit the appellants to raise this point. Of course, the respondent was given opportunity to rebut the same if he could.

6. It is to be noted that so far as the second notice is concerned, it is' on the face of it, much beyond the period of six months from the date of payment of duty; but the first notice, having been issued in the month of June 1981 in relation to the clearance effected on 15-12-1980, the dates of this notice were v