Back
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND GOLD (CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MADRAS
V.P. Gulati, T.P. Nambiar, JJ.
Kerala State Electronics Development Corporation Ltd. -Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Central Excise, Cochin -Respondent
Order No. 2455/97, E/Misc/713/97 A.No. E/888/87-B, 2455 of 1997, E/Misc/713 of 1997, E/888 of 1987
Decided On : 31-07-1997
K. Narasimhan,Ravinder Saroop
Per Shri V.P. Gulati :
The issue in the appeal relates to the classification of the goods which are supplied by the appellants as part of the contract for radio networking to the All India Radio. As per the order, the goods which have been ordered for by the All India Radio are as under :
Radio Network Receiving Terminal based on the specifications of the system as designed and furnished by Space Application Centre, Ahmedabad in consultation with All India Radio, each set completed with 12 ft. diameter antenna, front end, demodulator (tailend), cables for interconnection between the antenna and the front end, DC power supply unit, standard 19" rack with blank panels as necessary, the requisite installation/cabling material and operating/technical documentation.
2. The appellants had cleared these goods after filing the classification list and the price list and paid duty based on the approvals granted under Tariff Item 68. However, after the supplies had been effected by the appellants over a period of time, the show cause notice came to be issued on 07.10.86 demanding duty on entire goods which was supplied during the previous period of over 3 years. The last supply having been effected on 29.06.86. In the show cause notice issued to the appellants, it was alleged that the goods have been wrongly classified under Tariff Item 68 when the goods were correctly classifiable under Tariff Item 33A (4). The appellants had cleared the goods under the descriptions:
i) Frequency Translator (Active) Unit
ii) Frequency Translator (Passive) Unit
iii) Demodulator Unit
iv) Head End Unit
v) Power Supply without Redundency
vi) Dish Antenna
Suppression was also attributed for the reason that the goods have been mis-classified by the appellants.
3. The learned lower authority after examining the functional role played by the goods cleared by the appellants has held that the set of components which ultimately formed the receiving stations in the radio networking set-up constituted a wireless receiving set and the duty has, therefore, been demanded based on the classification of the goods under Tariff Item 33A (4).
4. As regards the suppression for invoking the longer period of limitation, the learned lower authority has entered the following finding:
I find that M/s. Keltron had only filed the classification lists in respect of the different components of the R.N.R.T. individually and not in respect of R.N.R.T. as a whole even though the purchase order was for the supply of R.N.R.T. as a whole. The fact about the supply of R.N.R.T. as whole was never informed to the Department. Thus the proper officer had only decided the classification of the components/parts of R.N.R.T. and had no occasion to decide the classification of R.N.R.T. as a whole. Since there is no dispute about the classification of the components/parts of R.N.R.T., the question of referring the matter to Collector (Appeals) does not arise. In as much as M/s. Keltron have suppressed the fact of manufacture of R.N.R.T. and had removed the same by wilful mis-statement and by misclassifying the goods as component parts, I find that the proviso to sub section (1) of Section 11A is correctly attracted and demand of duty maintainable under Rule 9 (2) read with the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 11A.
5. Arguing on the merits of the classification, the learned Advocate has urged that the goods in question as supplied by the appellants did not as it is constitute a wireless set in as much as the antenna which is necessary and essential for receiving the signal and for fitting the same into the 5 consoles supplied by them was not supplied along with the equipment and the whole configuration for receiving the signal emerged only on site after the antenna which was got manufactured outside the factory and was arranged to be supplied by the appellants direct to the site. To explain the functioning of the unit, the learned Advocate has filed by way of a Miscellaneous Petition a diagramatic represe
