2018 (1) TMI 163 - AT - Central Excise

Classification of goods - whether the packing box for packing of goods, i.e. vials, ampoules, etc. is made of corrugated boards and it qualifies as corrugated box classifiable under Chapter 4819.19 or 4819.12? - Held that - as per the facts of the present case, the box in question is not made up of corrugated paper or paper board but it is made of plain duplex boards. Therefore, it is correctly classifiable under Chapter heading 4819.19 - the documents submitted to the department contain different description as compared to copies of the same letters/declaration provided by the department under a cover of letter. Extended period of limitation - Held that - since the packing box is not manufactured out of corrugated paper or paperboard, declaration by the appellant as corrugated rondo trays is misleading to the department. Therefore, there is a clear suppression of fact on the part of the appellant, accordingly, demand for extended period is also clearly sustainable. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Classification of goods under Chapter Headings 48.19 of the Schedule to the CETA, 1985; Time-barring of the demand due to limitation; Allegations of suppression of facts by the appellant.

Classification of Goods:
The case involved the classification of Rondo Trays manufactured by the appellant under Chapter Headings 48.19. The Central Excise Officers contended that the product should be classified under Chapter 4819.19 instead of what the appellant had declared, attracting a duty of 8%. The appellant argued that the trays were made of corrugated paper and paper boards, correctly classifiable under Chapter 4819.12 with a nil rate of duty. The appellant claimed that the demand was time-barred due to the extended period invoked in the show-cause notice. The appellant cited previous judgments and provided sample invoices of other manufacturers to support their classification.

Limitation of Demand:
The appellant argued that the demand was time-barred as they had disclosed their activity of manufacturing printed rondo trays to the department earlier. They claimed that there was no suppression of facts on their part. However, the Revenue contended that the appellant had forged documents, which indicated an attempt to defraud the revenue. Discrepancies were found between the documents submitted by the appellant and those forwarded by the Commissioner, suggesting an intent to mislead.

Suppression of Facts:
The Tribunal analyzed the nature of the packing box in question and found that it was made of plain duplex board, not corrugated paper or paper board as claimed by the appellant. The Tribunal referred to the description of corrugated paper and paper boards from the HSN to support their decision. It was concluded that the appellant had indeed suppressed facts by declaring the product as corrugated rondo trays when it was not manufactured from corrugated materials. This suppression of fact justified the demand for the extended period and upheld the impugned order, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the classification of the goods under Chapter Heading 4819.19, rejected the appellant's argument of time-barring the demand, and found the appellant guilty of suppressing facts regarding the nature of the manufactured product. The judgment emphasized the importance of accurate classification and transparency in declarations to avoid misleading authorities and attempting to defraud the revenue.