TTK Protective Devices Ltd Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai)
The appeal challenged Order-in-Original No. 43072/2015 dated 30.11.2015, by which the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai–IV reclassified imported “Natural Rubber Latex Concentrate” from CTH 4001 2910 (Hevea) attracting 20% basic customs duty to CTH 4001 1020/40011020 attracting 70% duty. The demand covered five Bills of Entry (BEs) for the period April 2011 to March 2012 and confirmed differential duty of ₹92,18,355/- with interest and equal penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962.
The appellant, a manufacturer of contraceptives and an Accredited Client Programme (ACP) client, contended that the goods were correctly classified as “Hevea” under 4001 2910 and that earlier consignments of identical goods from the same supplier had been assessed under that heading. It was argued that the show cause notice (SCN) dated 09.03.2015 was issued beyond the normal one-year limitation period under Section 28 and that there was no suppression or wilful misstatement.
The department maintained that natural rubber latex in liquid form fell under 4001 10 and that misclassification was detected during post-clearance audit. It argued that since the BEs were self-assessed and facilitated through the Risk Management System without examination, extended limitation was invocable.
The Tribunal observed that the burden of proving incorrect classification lay on the revenue. It noted that the dispute period was 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2012, whereas the SCN was issued on 09.03.2015, beyond the normal limitation period. Relying on judicial precedents, it held that when a demand is time-barred, merits need not be examined.
