Specific tariff classification for furnace oil prevails, and the extended limitation period fails without suppression or intent to evade duty.

A specific tariff entry describing furnace oil by prescribed technical parameters governs classification, and an unstated requirement such as liquid state at room temperature or pour point cannot be added to displace that entry. As the test reports satisfied the relevant parameters and the product was marketed and supplied as furnace oil, classification under Tariff Item 10 was upheld rather than the residuary entry. On limitation, disclosure of the test reports and related facts negated suppression or misstatement with intent to evade duty, so the extended period under section 11A was unavailable and the demand was time-barred. The revenue challenge failed on both merits and limitation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the product cleared by the assessee was classifiable as furnace oil under Tariff Item 10 or as a residuary petroleum product under Tariff Item 11A(4); (ii) Whether the demand was barred by limitation and the extended period could be invoked.

Issue (i): Whether the product cleared by the assessee was classifiable as furnace oil under Tariff Item 10 or as a residuary petroleum product under Tariff Item 11A(4).

Analysis: Tariff Item 10 was held to be a specific entry for furnace oil defined by prescribed parameters, and there was no requirement in the tariff that the product must be liquid at room temperature or that pour point should govern classification. The relevant test reports showed satisfaction of the tariff parameters relating to smoke point, viscosity, carbon residue and colour. The product was also marketed and supplied as furnace oil, and the pour point test was treated as irrelevant for tariff classification.

Conclusion: The product was correctly classifiable under Tariff Item 10 as furnace oil and not under Tariff Item 11A(4); this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand was barred by limitation and the extended period could be invoked.

Analysis: The assessee had disclosed the relevant test reports and other information to the departmental authorities, and there was no finding of suppression of facts or misstatement with intent to evade duty. In the absence of such foundational facts, the extended period of limitation under section 11A was not available.

Conclusion: The demand was time-barred and the extended period could not be invoked; this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The classification adopted by the appellate authority was upheld, and the revenue's challenge failed on both merits and limitation.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a tariff entry specifically describes the goods by prescribed technical parameters, those parameters govern classification and an unstated physical-condition test cannot be added to displace the specific entry; the extended period of limitation requires proof of suppression or misstatement with intent to evade duty.

---