9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 491X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant is engaged in the manufacture of mono cartons and classifying the same under CETH 48192020 till Sept. 2011. Thereafter, the appellant changed the classification to CETH No. 48173090 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. On the basis of said change in classification, investigation was conducted and thereafter a show cause notice was issued on 2.1.2017 to classify the product under CETH No. 48192020 of the Tariff Act by invoking extended period of limitation. The matter was adjudicated and by invoking the extended period of limitation, the demand for the period October 2011 to Sept. 2016 was confirmed along with interest and penalty was imposed on the appellant. Against the said order, the appellant is before us. 3. The ld. Counse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erest. 5. On the other hand, ld. AR supported the impugned order. 6. On the basis of the arguments advanced before us, we find that it is a case of classification of the goods viz. boxes manufactured by the appellant. The appellant wants to classify the said goods under Chapter Heading No. 48173090 where as Revenue wants to classify the same under Chapter Heading 48192020. 7. For better appreciation the Tariff Entry is reproduced herein: 4817 Envelopes, letter cards, plain postcards and correspondence cards, of paper or paperboard; boxes, pouches, wallets and writing compendiums, of paper or paperboard, containing and assortment of paper stationery 481710 00 Envelopes..................................... 4817 20 00 Letter cards, p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ariff Act, 1985. 9. As in this case on 1.11.2011, the appellant wrote a letter to the department for change of their classification and also filed ER-1 return accordingly. As the said fact was in the knowledge of the department since 2011, therefore, the show cause notice issued to the appellant on 2.1.2017 is barred by limitation. 10. In these circumstances, we hold that for the period within limitation the appellant is liable to pay duty along with interest. As the action of the appellant was in the knowledge of the department itself, therefore, in this case, no penalty is imposable on the appellant. We further hold that as the appellant is liable to pay duty and have not availed Cenvat credit on input and input services, for the period ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
