Specific tariff entry prevails for boxes, while extended-period demand fails where classification was already disclosed.

Boxes manufactured by the assessee were classified under Chapter Heading 4819 rather than 4817 because the tariff entry for cartons, boxes and similar packing containers was the more specific description. The extended-period demand was barred by limitation since the department had been informed of the classification change and the same was reflected in ER-1 returns, so the relevant facts were already disclosed. Penalty was not sustainable because no mala fides were established, and Cenvat credit on inputs and input services was recognised for the relevant permissible period.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the impugned goods were classifiable under Chapter Heading 4817 or Chapter Heading 4819 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985; (ii) whether the demand for the extended period was barred by limitation; and (iii) whether penalty was sustainable and Cenvat credit was allowable.

Issue (i): Whether the impugned goods were classifiable under Chapter Heading 4817 or Chapter Heading 4819 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.

Analysis: The goods manufactured were boxes. Chapter Heading 4819 specifically covers cartons, boxes, cases and similar packing containers, while Chapter Heading 4817 relates to boxes, pouches, wallets and writing compendiums containing an assortment of paper stationery. On the basis of the tariff description, the more specific entry for boxes was found to be Chapter Heading 4819.

Conclusion: The goods were held classifiable under Chapter Heading 48192020 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand for the extended period was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The assessee had informed the department about the change in classification by letter dated 1.11.2011 and had also reflected the same in ER-1 returns. Since the department was aware of the facts from 2011, invocation of the extended period for the notice issued on 2.1.2017 was not justified.

Conclusion: The demand for the extended period was held barred by limitation, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether penalty was sustainable and Cenvat credit was allowable.

Analysis: As the disputed classification was within the knowledge of the department, no mala fides were attributed to the assessee. The order also recorded that duty remained payable for the period within limitation and that the assessee had not availed Cenvat credit on inputs and input services for the relevant period.

Conclusion: Penalty was held not imposable, and the assessee was held entitled to avail Cenvat credit on inputs and input services.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded in part: the classification was affirmed, but the extended-period demand failed, penalty was set aside, and credit entitlement was recognised for the permissible period.

Ratio Decidendi: Where goods are specifically covered by a tariff entry, that specific entry prevails over a more general one, and the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked when the relevant facts were already disclosed to the department.

---