ORDER
S.S. Kang, Member (J)
1. Heard both sides.
2. In this case, the appellants made import of certain suction and discharge valves and filed bill of entry classifying under Heading 8481.80 of the Customs Tariff. The goods were assessed and cleared on 12-10-98. Thereafter, on 10-11-99 on audit objection, recovery memo was issued to appellants after classifying the goods under Heading 8414.90 of the Customs Tariff. Appellants filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) which was dismissed.
3. The contention of the appellants is that no show cause notice was issued to the appellants for change of classification. The goods were cleared after payment of duty on 12-10-98 and after due assessment made under the classification claimed by the appellants. After more than one year i.e. after the normal statutory period of limitation under Section 28 of the Customs Act, audit memo was issued to the appellants. The contention of the appellants is that there is no suppression of facts to evade duty on their part. Therefore, the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked. Hence, demand is time-barred.
4. Learned SDR appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the lower authorities.
5. In this case, the goods were assessed as per declaration made by the appellants and after one year, audit memo was handed over to the appellants for re-classification of the goods and for demand of differential duty. Admittedly, no show cause notice for re-classification of goods and alleging suppression of facts to evade duty was issued to the appellants. In these circumstances, as the appellants filed bill of entry with the description of the goods which was duly assessed by the Customs, no suppression can be alleged against the appellants. Hence, the demand is hit by limitation. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.