Framed glass mirror classification upheld, but limitation barred the duty demand and wiped out penalty and interest.

Framed glass mirrors were treated as distinct commercial goods because cut-to-size mirror pieces were fitted with manufactured plastic frames and recognised in trade as framed mirrors, so classification under Heading 7006.90 was accepted. On limitation, prior departmental awareness, approved classification lists, earlier notices on the same product, and an earlier time-bar finding on an identical product meant suppression was not established and the extended period could not be invoked. With the demand failing on limitation, the consequential penalty and interest did not survive.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether framed glass mirrors were correctly classifiable under Heading 7006.90; (ii) Whether the duty demand was barred by limitation for want of suppression, and whether the penalties and interest survived.

Issue (i): Whether framed glass mirrors were correctly classifiable under Heading 7006.90.

Analysis: The product was found to emerge as a distinct commercial article known in the market as framed looking glass mirrors. The reasoning proceeded on the basis that glass mirror pieces were cut to size, plastic frames were manufactured and fixed to the mirrors, and the resulting goods were identifiable in trade as framed mirrors. On that basis, the classification under Heading 7006.90 was accepted.

Conclusion: The framed glass mirrors were correctly classifiable under Heading 7006.90.

Issue (ii): Whether the duty demand was barred by limitation for want of suppression, and whether the penalties and interest survived.

Analysis: The record showed prior departmental awareness of the activity, approval of classification lists, earlier notices on the same product, and an adjudication on an identical product holding the demand to be time-barred. In that setting, the allegation of deliberate suppression for invoking the extended period was not sustainable. Once the demand itself could not survive on limitation, the consequential penalty under Section 11AC and the interest demand also could not stand.

Conclusion: The demand was barred by limitation, the extended period was unavailable, and the penalty and interest did not survive.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded because the duty demand could not be sustained on limitation, with the consequential penal and interest liabilities falling with it, notwithstanding the classification finding.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the department was already aware of the manufacture and classification lists had been approved, the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked on the basis of alleged suppression, and consequential penalty and interest cannot survive once the demand fails.

---