Tamarind kernel powder classification accepted under milling industry heading; extended limitation denied absent suppression or wilful misstatement.

Chemically treated tamarind kernel powder was treated as a product of the milling industry under Heading 11.01, not as a gum under Heading 13.01, because the tariff scheme and the applicable Board circular supported classification under sub-heading 1101.90 and the Revenue did not establish that the product answered the gum entry. The extended period of limitation was also held unavailable because classification declarations and process disclosure were on record, and the omission for one unit was treated as a bona fide clerical lapse rather than conscious suppression or wilful misstatement with intent to evade duty. The assessee's classification was therefore accepted and the duty demand based on extended limitation failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether TPT-12, being chemically treated tamarind kernel powder, was classifiable under Heading 11.01 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 as a product of the milling industry or under Heading 13.01 as a gum. (ii) Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for recovery of duty.

Issue (i): Whether TPT-12, being chemically treated tamarind kernel powder, was classifiable under Heading 11.01 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 as a product of the milling industry or under Heading 13.01 as a gum.

Analysis: The product was found to be tamarind seed powder treated with chemicals, preservative and packing, and the relevant Board circular clarified that tamarind seed powder or TKP would be classifiable under sub-heading 1101.90, except where used for prophylactic or therapeutic retail sale. The Tariff scheme and the circular supported classification as a product of the milling industry, and the Revenue did not dislodge that position by showing that the product answered Heading 13.01.

Conclusion: The product was held classifiable under Heading 11.01 and not under Heading 13.01, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for recovery of duty.

Analysis: The assessee had filed classification declarations and had disclosed the manufacturing process for one unit, while the omission for the other unit was treated as a bona fide clerical lapse. In the absence of material showing conscious suppression or wilful misstatement with intent to evade duty, the conditions for invoking the extended period were not satisfied.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was held not invocable, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded because the classification adopted by the assessee was accepted and the duty demand based on the extended period could not be sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a product of tamarind kernel powder remains within the milling-industry entry on the strength of the applicable tariff scheme and departmental clarification, and the record does not establish suppression or wilful misstatement, the classification stands under the milling heading and the extended limitation period cannot be invoked.

---