Tariff classification of steel balls follows Chapter 84 note requirements; false declaration justified extended limitation.

Grinded media steel balls that met the tolerance specifications in Note 6 to Chapter 84 were classifiable under Heading 84.82, and the contrary classification under Heading 73.26 failed. The chemical examination confirmed conformity with the note, so the tariff heading had to follow that specific classification rule. A false declaration by the assessee that the goods did not meet Note 6 supported invocation of the extended limitation period under the proviso to Section 11A, because the misstatement was deliberate. The duty demand and penalty were therefore sustained, and the appeal failed in entirety.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether grinding media steel balls satisfying the specifications in Note 6 to Chapter 84 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 were classifiable under Heading 84.82 instead of Heading 73.26; (ii) Whether the demand could be sustained by invoking the extended period under the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Issue (i): Whether grinding media steel balls satisfying the specifications in Note 6 to Chapter 84 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 were classifiable under Heading 84.82 instead of Heading 73.26.

Analysis: Note 6 provides that Heading 84.82 applies to polished steel balls whose maximum and minimum diameters do not differ from the nominal diameter by more than the prescribed tolerance, and other steel balls fall under Heading 73.26. The chemical examiner's report recorded that the samples conformed to these specifications. The Tribunal had already recognised that polished steel balls meeting the Note 6 standards fall under Chapter 84.82.

Conclusion: The classification under Heading 84.82 was upheld and the challenge to the classification failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand could be sustained by invoking the extended period under the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis: The assessee had declared that the goods did not conform to Note 6 and had stated that the maximum and minimum diameters differed beyond the prescribed limit. The test report showed that this declaration was false. Such incorrect declaration amounted to deliberate misstatement justifying invocation of the extended period.

Conclusion: Invocation of the extended period was justified.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed in entirety, and the duty demand and penalty were sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where chemical examination establishes that goods satisfy the tariff note governing a specific heading, classification must follow that note, and a deliberate false declaration regarding the goods' specifications justifies the extended limitation period.

---