Medicated soap classification treated as toilet soap; misdeclaration justified extended limitation and sustained duty demand.

Medicated soap used for bathing and washing remained toilet soap for tariff purposes, because the presence of medicinal ingredients did not alter its essential character as a toilet-use product. It was therefore classifiable under CET sub-heading 3401.19 rather than 3401.11. The classification declaration describing it as soap other than for toilet use was treated as misdeclaration and suppression of the correct description, supporting invocation of the extended period under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The demand was held not time-barred, while the duty demand was sustained and the penalties were reduced.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Tetmosol soap was classifiable as soap other than for toilet use under CET sub-heading 3401.11 or as other soaps under CET sub-heading 3401.19; and (ii) whether the demand in Appeal No. E/337/02 was barred by limitation.

Issue (i): Whether Tetmosol soap was classifiable as soap other than for toilet use under CET sub-heading 3401.11 or as other soaps under CET sub-heading 3401.19.

Analysis: The product was a medicated soap used for treatment and prevention of scabies, but it was still used for bathing and washing. Medicated soap does not cease to be toilet soap merely because it contains medicinal substance. The explanatory notes to Chapter 34 also recognise medicated soaps as a category of toilet soap.

Conclusion: The product was held to be soap for toilet use and therefore classifiable under CET sub-heading 3401.19, not under CET sub-heading 3401.11.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand in Appeal No. E/337/02 was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The classification declaration described the product as soap other than for toilet use and placed it under the lower-rated heading. This amounted to misdeclaration and suppression of the correct description. The higher duty differential supported the inference of intention to evade duty, attracting the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was held to be available to the department and the demand was not time-barred.

Final Conclusion: The duty demands were sustained, while the penalties were reduced, resulting in only partial relief to the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A medicated soap used for bathing and washing remains toilet soap for tariff classification, and misdeclaration of its description in classification documents can justify invocation of the extended limitation period under the central excise law.

---