Full Judgment
2. As it was issued on 1st March, 1986, Notification 64/86, exempted in Serial No. 2 of the Table attached to it agricultural implements and parts thereof falling under Chapter 82 of the Tariff from duty. On 14-3-1986 this notification was amended by including it in such goods of Chapter 84. Thus, from this date onwards, it exempted agricultural implements and parts thereof falling under Chapter 82 or Chapter 84 from duty.
3 It is not in dispute that the goods, which are the subject matter of the appeal, were classifiable under Chapter 84 and were not classifiable under any heading of Chapter 82. The contention of representative of the appellant is that the Board has clarified in a Circular No. 44/94 CX, dated 27-6-1994 that the agricultural implements specified in the particular entry of the notification includes "agricultural mechanical appliances/machinery". No doubt the Board's clarification says this. However it also says that these goods would be covered by the exemption as amended by Notification 196/86. Prior to this amendment, there were two conditions to be satisfied before this exemption would apply. First the goods must be agricultural implements or the Board's circular has to be accepted "agricultural mechanical implement" by virtue of Supreme Court judgment in Ranadey Micronutrients v. U.O.I - 1996 (87) E.L.T. 19. The other requirement is that the goods must be classifiable under Chapter 82. It is accepted that these goods were not classifiable under Chapter 82. Therefore the benefit of the notification will not be available.
4. The further contention raised is that the demand is barred by limitation, since the proviso to Section 11A of the Act cannot be invoked so as to apply the extended period. The show cause notices in each case alleged that the assessee did not declare the true nature of the goods in the declarations filed before the Asstt. Collector and merely described the goods as parts of agricultural implements. There is nothing to show that this is incorrect. The contention that the Collector, who passed the order, was shown the evidence that the declaration filed by the assessee showed the parts in question to be goods classifiable under Chapter 84, has not been substantiated; nor has the Collector recorded such an argument having been raised before him. It is therefore not possible for us to say that the extended period is wrongly invoked.
5. We therefore find no material to interfere with the impugned order and dismissed the appeals.