Tariff classification of portable brush cutters follows HSN notes, while full disclosure bars extended limitation and penalty.

Portable brush cutters were classified under Heading 8467 rather than Heading 8432 because the tariff description and HSN Explanatory Notes governed classification, and intended agricultural use did not change their character as hand tools with self-contained motors. The extended period of limitation was not sustainable because the goods, catalogue, and descriptions were disclosed to customs, the consignments were examined, and mere incorrect classification did not establish suppression or misdeclaration. Penalty also could not survive once the allegation of suppression failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the imported brush cutters were classifiable under Heading 8432 or Heading 8467 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975; (ii) whether the demand for the past period could be sustained by invoking the extended period of limitation; and (iii) whether penalty was imposable.

Issue (i): Whether the imported brush cutters were classifiable under Heading 8432 or Heading 8467 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.

Analysis: Heading 8432 and Heading 8433 cover machinery used for agricultural, horticultural or harvesting operations, whereas Heading 8467 covers tools for working in the hand with self-contained motor. The Explanatory Notes specifically include portable brush-cutters within Heading 8467 and exclude portable machines for trimming lawns or cutting grass in corners and similar hand-held tools from the agricultural headings. Classification must follow the tariff description and HSN Explanatory Notes, and the intended agricultural use of the goods does not alter their tariff character. The goods were therefore treated as hand tools rather than agricultural machinery.

Conclusion: The brush cutters are classifiable under Heading 8467 8990 and not under Heading 8432 2990.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand for the past period could be sustained by invoking the extended period of limitation.

Analysis: The goods and accompanying catalogue were disclosed at the time of assessment, the consignments were examined by customs officers, and the description of the goods was correctly declared throughout. Mere adoption of an incorrect classification, when all material facts were before the department, does not by itself establish suppression or misdeclaration for the purpose of invoking the extended period. The stray instances of a different classification in some bills of entry were not treated as sufficient to infer deliberate evasion.

Conclusion: Invocation of the extended period of limitation was not sustainable.

Issue (iii): Whether penalty was imposable.

Analysis: Once the demand for the extended period failed, the foundation for penalty on the basis of suppression and deliberate evasion also failed. Penalty could not survive independently on the facts found.

Conclusion: Penalty was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The classification was upheld in favour of Revenue, but the demand and interest were confined to the normal period, while the extended-period demand and penalty were annulled.

Ratio Decidendi: For tariff classification, the specific HSN-based description and Explanatory Notes prevail over claimed end-use, and an incorrect classification alone cannot justify extended limitation where the assessee has disclosed the goods and material facts to customs.

---