United Diamonds Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. short question involved herein is whether demand of duty for the period september, 1988 to august, 1989 against the show cause notice dated 15-6-1990 for declaring the goods in the classification list as watch crystals is barred by time when the authorities find that it is watch glass.1.1. learned advocate submits that watch crystal is known as watch glass. it is apparent from the ministry of finance circular no.132/5/94-cx. 4 (circular no. 1/91, dated 1-1-1991). that circular starts with the following paragraph :- "i am directed to say that doubts have been raised regarding correct classification of watch crystals (glasses) whether under sub-heading 7011.90 as 'clock or watch glass and similar glasses' or under sub-heading 9114.00 as 'other clock or watch parts'." he also points out.....

Judgment:
1. Short question involved herein is whether demand of duty for the period September, 1988 to August, 1989 against the show cause notice dated 15-6-1990 for declaring the goods in the classification list as watch crystals is barred by time when the authorities find that it is watch glass.

1.1. Learned Advocate submits that watch crystal is known as watch glass. It is apparent from the Ministry of Finance Circular No.132/5/94-CX. 4 (Circular No. 1/91, dated 1-1-1991). That circular starts with the following paragraph :- "I am directed to say that doubts have been raised regarding correct classification of Watch Crystals (glasses) whether under sub-heading 7011.90 as 'clock or watch glass and similar glasses' or under sub-heading 9114.00 as 'other clock or watch parts'." He also points out the meaning of crystal from the Chambers Dictionary Delux Edition which among various meanings gives the meaning of crystal as superior glass. He also cites various meanings from the said dictionary for the word 'crystal' as "a superior glass of various kinds; cut glass; a watch glass". Learned Advocate, therefore, submits that there is absolutely no mis-description of goods made by the appellants in the classification list. The finding of the lower authority that there was a mis-declaration in the classification list is without any basis. Accordingly, he submits that the show cause notice dated 15-6-1990 for the period September, 1988 to August, 1989 is barred by time inasmuch as, in the aforesaid facts and circumstances longer period of 5 years cannot be invoked.

2. Opposing the contention learned SDR, Shri A.K. Agarwal has reiterated the finding of the adjudication authority that there was a mis-description of goods in the classification list.

3. We have carefully considered the pleas advanced from both sides. We do not agree with the finding of the adjudicating authority in view of the submissions of the learned Advocate giving meaning not only from the dictionary but also from the Board's circular dated 1-1-1991 issued subsequently that watch crystals are nothing but watch glasses.

Therefore, the demand of duty is set aside as barred by time.

4. Appeal is allowed in the above terms. In view of the foregoing, it is not necessary to go into the question of classification which is not seriously disputed by the learned Advocate.