Prefabricated building classification and limitation fail where site-assembled insulated panels are disclosed and suppression is not proved.

Prefabricated structural insulated panels cleared with ancillary components in knocked-down condition were treated as prefabricated buildings rather than builders' ware of plastics because they were manufactured to predetermined dimensions and intended for assembly into completed structures at site. The text also states that the extended limitation period under section 11A was unavailable because suppression was not established, given the assessee's disclosures and uncertainty in the department's own classification approach. On that basis, the duty and penalty confirmation could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the prefabricated structural insulated panels cleared with ancillary components in knocked down condition were classifiable under Chapter Heading 94.06 as prefabricated buildings or under Chapter Heading 39.25 as builders' ware of plastics; (ii) Whether the demand covered by the notice dated 29-11-2001 for the period November 1996 to April 1998 was barred by limitation under the extended period.

Issue (i): Whether the prefabricated structural insulated panels cleared with ancillary components in knocked down condition were classifiable under Chapter Heading 94.06 as prefabricated buildings or under Chapter Heading 39.25 as builders' ware of plastics.

Analysis: The panels were manufactured in predetermined dimensions, supplied with channels, corner angles and other required components, and were intended to be assembled at site into completed structures such as cabins, shelters, cold storages and other buildings. The reasoning accepted that the product, viewed as cleared and marketed, had the character of a prefabricated building and not merely of plastic builders' ware. The department's case that polystyrene gave the essential character was not supported by reliable evidence, and the record did not justify applying Rule 3(b) so as to treat the goods as classifiable under Heading 39.25. The Chapter notes and the nature of clearance favoured classification as prefabricated buildings.

Conclusion: The goods were classifiable under Chapter Heading 94.06 and not under Chapter Heading 39.25, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand covered by the notice dated 29-11-2001 for the period November 1996 to April 1998 was barred by limitation under the extended period.

Analysis: The extended period under section 11A could not be invoked because suppression was not established. The record showed uncertainty in the department's own classification approach, and the assessee had made disclosures regarding the product and its manufacture. On that basis, the invocation of the longer period for the older demand was not sustainable.

Conclusion: The demand for the said period was time-barred and unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order confirming duty and penalty could not be sustained, and the appeal succeeded with the classification and limitation findings favouring the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where prefabricated components are cleared in predetermined dimensions with the intention of assembly into completed structures at site, their classification must be determined by their character as cleared and their intended use as a prefabricated building, and an extended-period demand cannot be sustained without proof of suppression.

---