Exhaustive tariff entry and revenue-neutrality principles defeat higher IGST classification and time-barred differential demand.

An exhaustive tariff entry listing specific goods after the expression "i.e." covers only those named items, so nutritional supplements under CTSH 2106 9099 were treated as falling outside Serial No. 9 of Schedule IV and within the residual rate under Serial No. 453 of Schedule III, attracting IGST at 18% rather than 28%. The commentary also notes that the differential IGST demand was time-barred because the classification issue was within the assessing authority's knowledge, no suppression of facts was shown, and the matter was revenue neutral due to input tax credit availability. On that basis, the extended period could not be invoked.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether nutritional supplements classifiable under CTSH 2106 9099 were liable to IGST at 28% under Serial No. 9 of Schedule IV of Notification No. 1/2017-IGST-Rate or at 18% under Serial No. 453 of Schedule III; (ii) Whether the demand for differential IGST was barred by limitation.

Issue (i): Whether nutritional supplements classifiable under CTSH 2106 9099 were liable to IGST at 28% under Serial No. 9 of Schedule IV of Notification No. 1/2017-IGST-Rate or at 18% under Serial No. 453 of Schedule III.

Analysis: Serial No. 9 of Schedule IV covered only the specific goods enumerated after the expression "i.e." and did not operate as a general entry for the entire heading 2106. The imported nutritional supplements were not among the expressly listed items and therefore did not fall within Serial No. 9. As they were goods of a chapter not otherwise specified in Schedules I, II, IV, V or VI, they were covered by Serial No. 453 of Schedule III.

Conclusion: The classification adopted by the Revenue was not sustainable. The goods were liable to IGST at 18% under Serial No. 453 of Schedule III, not at 28% under Serial No. 9 of Schedule IV.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand for differential IGST was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The goods were cleared on physical assessment by the customs officer, and the classification and exemption claim were within the knowledge of the assessing authority. No suppression of facts was established, and the show cause notice was issued long after the period of clearance. The availability of input tax credit also rendered the matter revenue neutral, negativing any allegation of mala fides and supporting the appellant's plea against the extended period.

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

Final Conclusion: The impugned order could not be sustained, the differential duty demand failed on both classification and limitation, and the appeal succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a tariff entry uses an exhaustive qualifying expression to enumerate specific goods, only the named goods are covered, and a demand based on the extended period cannot survive absent suppression of facts, especially when the dispute is revenue neutral.

---