Polishing of ceramic tiles is not glazing, and absence of suppression bars extended excise limitation.

Polished ceramic tiles were held not to be glazed tiles because glazing requires a coating of melted glass or a ceramic glaze matured to a glassy state, not mere mechanical polishing or a shiny surface. On limitation, the extended period for excise demand under the proviso to Section 11-A applies only on suppression, fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, or similar culpable conduct; the finding of no suppression was treated as factual and the extended period could not be invoked. Both the classification issue and the limitation objection were decided against the Revenue, so the demand failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether polished ceramic tiles, without any coating of melted glass, are classifiable as glazed tiles; (ii) Whether the demand was barred by limitation for want of suppression of facts.

Issue (i): Whether polished ceramic tiles, without any coating of melted glass, are classifiable as glazed tiles.

Analysis: The distinction between glazing and polishing was treated as material to classification under the tariff. Glazed tiles were understood in common parlance as tiles having a coating of melted glass or a ceramic glaze matured to a glassy state. Mere polishing or a shiny surface did not amount to glazing. The record showed that the tiles were subjected only to mechanical polishing and not to any glazing process involving application of a glass coating.

Conclusion: The tiles were not glazed tiles and were not classifiable as glazed goods on that basis.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand was barred by limitation for want of suppression of facts.

Analysis: The extended period under the proviso to Section 11-A applies only where there is suppression, fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, or a similar culpable element. On the facts found, the Tribunal had recorded that there was no suppression, and that finding was treated as one of fact not open to interference. In the absence of suppression, the extended period could not be invoked.

Conclusion: The demand was barred by limitation and the extended period could not be applied.

Final Conclusion: The classification dispute and the limitation objection were both decided against the Revenue, and the appeal failed in entirety.

Ratio Decidendi: For tariff classification, polishing of ceramic tiles does not by itself constitute glazing; and the extended limitation period for excise duty demand cannot be invoked absent suppression of facts or comparable culpable conduct.

---