Extended limitation period not available absent suppression or wilful misstatement where goods were correctly described in classification records.

Where the assessee broadly and correctly described the goods in the classification list, and the buyers' description matched the declaration, there was no material to establish suppression or wilful misstatement. The tribunal held that the chapter heading itself covered containers in assembled as well as unassembled condition, so invocation of the extended period of limitation was not justified. The demand was therefore time barred, with consequential relief granted to the assessee, while the merits of classification were left undecided.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand was barred by limitation on the ground that there was no suppression or misstatement by the assessee so as to justify invocation of the extended period.

Analysis: The description adopted by the buyers and the description declared by the appellant in the classification list were found to be the same. The appellant had given a broad description of the goods, and the tribunal held that the chapter heading itself covered containers in assembled as well as unassembled condition. On these facts, there was no material to support an allegation of suppression or misstatement.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not sustainable, and the demand was held to be time barred in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded on limitation and were allowed with consequential relief, leaving the merits of classification undecided.

Ratio Decidendi: Mere adoption of a classification claim, where the goods are broadly and correctly described in the classification list and the department has not shown suppression of material facts or wilful misstatement, does not justify invocation of the extended period of limitation.

---