Tariff classification of fabricated structures turns on drawings, specifications and essential character, not separate procurement of components.

Classification of supplied fabricated goods under the tariff depends on the purchase orders, drawings and specifications, and on whether the goods retain the essential character of prefabricated buildings. Where contracts described only structural work, Heading 7308 for iron or steel structures applied; where the fabrication matched the design and essential character of a prefabricated building, Heading 9406 applied even if roofing sheets or walls were separately procured. In a pure classification dispute, penalty was found unsustainable because the controversy concerned tariff interpretation rather than penal misconduct. The duty demand was accordingly confined to the disputed purchase orders and the matter required re-quantification.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the goods supplied under the impugned purchase orders were classifiable under Heading 7308 as structures of iron or steel or under Heading 9406 as prefabricated buildings. (ii) Whether penalty was sustainable in a pure classification dispute.

Issue (i): Whether the goods supplied under the impugned purchase orders were classifiable under Heading 7308 as structures of iron or steel or under Heading 9406 as prefabricated buildings.

Analysis: Chapter 73.08 excludes prefabricated buildings of Heading 94.06, while Note 4 to Chapter 94 treats prefabricated buildings as buildings finished in the factory or cleared as elements for assembly at site. The purchase orders and drawings had to be examined to determine whether the supplies were mere steel structures or buildings with the essential character of prefabricated buildings. On the facts, some contracts, especially those describing structural work only, did not answer the description of prefabricated buildings. For the remaining contracts, the materials were fabricated to specific dimensions as per drawings and specifications, and the absence of roofing sheets or walls as bought-out items did not alter their character where the goods retained the essential characteristics of a prefabricated building.

Conclusion: Classification under Heading 9406 was upheld for the purchase orders found to be for prefabricated buildings, while the demands relating to the purchase orders of Godrej Agrovet Ltd. and Godrej & Boyce Ltd. were upheld under Heading 7308.

Issue (ii): Whether penalty was sustainable in a pure classification dispute.

Analysis: The dispute turned on interpretation of tariff headings and the nature of the contracts and goods supplied. The record did not establish a case warranting penal consequence once the issue was confined to classification and quantification of duty.

Conclusion: Penalty was held to be unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The duty demand was sustained only in part by restricting it to the disputed purchase orders, and the matter was remitted for re-quantification accordingly, while penalty was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: For prefabricated buildings, classification depends on the contractual drawings, specifications and the essential character of the goods as supplied, and not on whether certain components such as roofing sheets or walls are separately procured or supplied as bought-out items.

---