Poha classification under Chapter 11, not prepared food, and pure tariff dispute does not justify extended period.

Poha was treated as a rice or cereal product under Chapter 11, not as prepared food under Chapter 19, because it underwent only limited processing and was not further cooked or prepared into a ready-to-eat product. The earlier view placing poha under Chapter 19 was stated to have been overruled. On the limitation issue, the dispute was described as a pure classification matter, and the record was said not to support suppression, misrepresentation, or intent to evade duty; accordingly, resort to the extended period was not sustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether poha was classifiable under Chapter 19 as prepared food or under Chapter 11 as a form of rice/cereal product; (ii) Whether invocation of the extended period and denial of relief on the basis of suppression was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether poha was classifiable under Chapter 19 as prepared food or under Chapter 11 as a form of rice/cereal product.

Analysis: The competing tariff entries had to be read harmoniously. The product underwent the limited processing associated with Chapter 11 and there was no further cooking or preparation bringing it into the category of prepared food under Chapter 19. The earlier view treating poha as falling under Chapter 19 had been overruled, and the product was treated as a form of rice rather than a prepared food.

Conclusion: The classification under Chapter 19 was not justified; the product was not liable to be assessed as prepared food under that chapter.

Issue (ii): Whether invocation of the extended period and denial of relief on the basis of suppression was sustainable.

Analysis: The dispute turned on classification and interpretation of tariff entries. On such facts, the record did not support suppression, misrepresentation, or intent to evade duty. The demand could not be sustained by resort to the extended period.

Conclusion: Invocation of the extended period was not sustainable.

Final Conclusion: The impugned orders were set aside and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a product undergoes only the processing contemplated by the heading for rice or cereal products and is not subjected to further cooking or preparation making it a prepared food, it cannot be classified under the heading for prepared foods; a pure classification dispute, without suppression or misrepresentation, does not justify the extended period.

---