Specific tariff entry prevails for furnace oil; limitation fails absent suppression or intent to evade duty.

Furnace oil was treated as classifiable under Tariff Item 10 where it satisfied the specified functional parameters of smoke point, viscosity, carbon residue and colour; the absence of any tariff requirement that it be liquid at room temperature meant the residuary entry under Tariff Item 11A(4) was inappropriate. On limitation, disclosure of relevant test reports and the absence of suppression or misstatement with intent to evade duty meant the extended period under Section 11A was unavailable. The classification and time-bar findings were sustained, and the revenue appeal was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether furnace oil was classifiable under Tariff Item 10 as claimed by the assessee or under Tariff Item 11A(4) as a residuary product, and whether the product had to be liquid at room temperature for classification under Tariff Item 10; (ii) Whether the demand was barred by limitation and the extended period under Section 11A could be invoked.

Issue (i): Whether furnace oil was classifiable under Tariff Item 10 as claimed by the assessee or under Tariff Item 11A(4) as a residuary product, and whether the product had to be liquid at room temperature for classification under Tariff Item 10.

Analysis: Tariff Item 10 described furnace oil by specified parameters, including smoke point, viscosity, carbon residue and colour. The relevant definition of mineral oil in the tariff did not prescribe that the product must be liquid at any particular ambient temperature. The product was shown to be stored, moved and sold as fuel oil in liquid form, and the departmental test report had found the viscosity parameter to be satisfied. The pour point test was not a tariff criterion and was not a reliable basis to deny classification as furnace oil. The residuary entry could not be preferred when the specific entry was satisfied.

Conclusion: The product was correctly classifiable under Tariff Item 10 and not under Tariff Item 11A(4); the finding was in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand was barred by limitation and the extended period under Section 11A could be invoked.

Analysis: The assessee had disclosed the relevant information, including test reports, to the department, and there was no finding of suppression of facts or misstatement with intent to evade duty. In the absence of such ingredients, the longer period under Section 11A was unavailable.

Conclusion: The demand was time-barred and the extended period under Section 11A could not be invoked; the finding was in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The classification adopted by the appellate authority and its rejection of the demand on limitation were sustained, resulting in dismissal of the revenue's appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a tariff entry contains specific functional parameters, goods satisfying those parameters cannot be excluded on the basis of an unstated physical-condition requirement, and the extended limitation period is unavailable absent suppression of facts or intent to evade duty.

---