2008 (12) TMI 582 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Classification of Aluminium Foil backed 4-Ply Foil and Glassine Poly paper under Chapter 7607.60 and 4811.39 respectively, invocation of extended period, imposition of penalties.

Classification Dispute - Aluminium Foil backed 4-Ply Foil:
The appellants manufactured and cleared Aluminium Foil backed 4-Ply Foil and Glassine Poly paper, classified under Chapter 7607.60 and 4811.39 respectively. Show cause notice proposed to classify both products under CETH 3920. Original Adjudicating Authority agreed with the appellants on the classification of Aluminium Foil backed 4-Ply Foil. However, Glassine Poly paper was held to be classified under Chapter 39.20, a decision upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). Extended period invoked and penalties imposed.

Classification Dispute - Glassine Poly paper:
The ld. Advocate for the appellants agreed that Glassine Poly paper should be classified under Chapter 39 as proposed by Revenue. He acknowledged a mistake in classification due to considering weight instead of thickness. The thickness of Poly film was greater than the paper. The show cause notice was challenged as time-barred, issued in December 2003 for a period of 1999-2000. The appellants argued that they had provided necessary details, including classification declaration and manufacturing process information, indicating the Department was aware of the goods' manufacture. The Department contended that crucial information on thickness was not provided, constituting suppression/misdeclaration.

Analysis and Decision:
The classification declaration for Glassine Poly paper was filed on 2-2-1999, describing the product as paper and paper-board laminated with Poly film. The manufacturing process details were provided, showing the correct specifications and process of Kraft Paper-Poly lamination. The weight of raw materials per ton was disclosed. The Tribunal found that the manufacturing process was accurately indicated, and there was no deliberate intent to mislead. The Revenue failed to justify the invocation of the extended period under Section 11A. Consequently, the appeal on limitation was allowed.

*(Pronounced in Court)*