Clear float glass classification under Chapter 70 upheld; exemption allowed and extended limitation rejected absent suppression.

Clear float glass was held classifiable under CTH 70051090 because Chapter Note 2(c) to Chapter 70 covers glass with a microscopically thin absorbent, reflecting or non-reflecting layer; the presence of a tin layer supported by test reports and manufacture was sufficient, and a separate conscious coating on one side was not required. On that classification, the exemption under Notification No. 46/2011-Cus was available on the facts. The extended limitation under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act was not justified because the dispute arose from a legal reclassification issue and audit objection, without positive suppression or wilful misdeclaration; the consequential demand, penalty, confiscation and redemption fine were unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the imported Clear Float Glass was classifiable under CTH 70051090 or CTH 70052990; (ii) whether the appellant was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 46/2011-Cus dated 01.06.2011; (iii) whether the extended period of limitation and the consequential demand, penalty, confiscation and redemption fine were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the imported Clear Float Glass was classifiable under CTH 70051090 or CTH 70052990.

Analysis: The classification depended on Chapter Note 2(c) to Chapter 70 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, which covers glass having a microscopically thin absorbent, reflecting or non-reflecting layer. The record showed that the goods were non-wired float glass having a tin layer, and the test reports as well as the manufacturing process supported the presence of such a layer. The reasoning that the layer must be a separate conscious coating on a particular side of the glass was not supported by the tariff entry or chapter note. The issue was also covered by earlier coordinate decisions and advance rulings on identical goods.

Conclusion: The imported Clear Float Glass was correctly classifiable under CTH 70051090.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 46/2011-Cus dated 01.06.2011.

Analysis: The exemption under Serial No. 934 depended on the correct classification and proof of origin. Once the goods were held classifiable under CTH 70051090, the denial of the notification benefit could not be sustained on the basis of the country-of-origin declaration. The notification was applicable on the facts established in the proceeding.

Conclusion: The appellant was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 46/2011-Cus dated 01.06.2011.

Issue (iii): Whether the extended period of limitation and the consequential demand, penalty, confiscation and redemption fine were sustainable.

Analysis: The department had earlier proceeded on the same goods through provisional assessment and finalisation, and the dispute arose only after the audit objection. In the absence of positive suppression or wilful misdeclaration, reclassification on a legal interpretative dispute did not justify invocation of the extended period under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962. Once the demand failed on limitation, the consequential confiscation, redemption fine and penalty also could not survive.

Conclusion: The extended period was not invokable and the demand, penalty, confiscation and redemption fine were unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The imported goods were held to fall under CTH 70051090, the exemption benefit was available, and the entire adjudication against the appellant failed.

Ratio Decidendi: For glass covered by Chapter 70, classification under CTH 70051090 turns on the existence of a microscopically thin absorbent, reflecting or non-reflecting layer; a separate post-manufacture coating on a particular side is not a statutory requirement, and a reclassification dispute based on audit objection alone does not justify extended limitation absent suppression or misdeclaration.

---