Specific tariff entry prevails over general classification; demand sustained for suppression, but redemption fine on assets was set aside.

Leno gauze cloth was classified under the specific tariff entry for gauze rather than the broader cotton fabrics entry, because a specific description prevails over a general one and the goods answered the gauze description on the record. The demand was sustained within the extended limitation period, as the failure to disclose full particulars prevented proper classification and supported a finding of suppression. The redemption fine relating to confiscation of land, building and machinery was held excessive in the circumstances and was set aside, while the remainder of the order was maintained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the product, leno gauze cloth, was classifiable under Heading No. 58.03 of the Central Excise Tariff as gauze or under Heading No. 52.06 as cotton fabrics. (ii) Whether the demand was barred by limitation on the ground that there was no suppression. (iii) Whether the redemption fine imposed in lieu of confiscation of land, building and machinery could be sustained.

Issue (i): Whether the product, leno gauze cloth, was classifiable under Heading No. 58.03 of the Central Excise Tariff as gauze or under Heading No. 52.06 as cotton fabrics.

Analysis: The product was admitted to be leno gauze cloth and the record showed that it was cross-woven gauze. Chapter 58 specifically covered gauze, and Chapter Note 3 described the fabric characteristics of gauze. The goods were not pharmaceutical products at the stage of clearance and therefore did not fall under Heading No. 30.04. Heading No. 52.06 was only a general entry for cotton fabrics, whereas Heading No. 58.03 was a specific entry for gauze. In tariff interpretation, a specific entry prevails over a general entry. The test reports and supporting material were treated as consistent with the classification adopted by the department.

Conclusion: The goods were correctly classifiable under Heading No. 58.03, and the classification under Heading No. 52.06 was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand was barred by limitation on the ground that there was no suppression.

Analysis: The authority found that full particulars of the goods manufactured had not been given to the department so as to enable proper classification by the jurisdictional officers. On that basis, the plea that there was no suppression was not accepted, and the extended limitation basis for demand was sustained.

Conclusion: The plea of limitation failed and the demand was held to be within time.

Issue (iii): Whether the redemption fine imposed in lieu of confiscation of land, building and machinery could be sustained.

Analysis: The order of confiscation and the associated fines were examined in the facts of the case. While the order was otherwise upheld, the redemption fine relating to land, building and machinery was found excessive in the circumstances and was set aside. The remaining part of the order was left undisturbed.

Conclusion: The redemption fine of Rs. 10,000 in lieu of confiscation of land, building and machinery was set aside, and the rest of the order was sustained.

Final Conclusion: The classification and demand were upheld, but one component of the redemption fine was deleted, resulting in only partial relief to the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a product answers the description of a specific tariff entry, that specific entry prevails over a broader general entry for classification purposes, and the assessee's failure to disclose full particulars may justify the demand on the footing of suppression.

---