Tariff classification and suppression standard govern duty liability, with marketability not decisive and penalties set aside.

Aluminium frames made by bending and drilling duty-paid aluminium sections were treated as excisable goods because they fell within specific tariff headings and emerged as a distinct manufactured article; lack of independent marketability was not decisive. The extended limitation period was unavailable because suppression was not proved by mere omission in the classification list; positive conduct beyond inaction was required, so the demand was confined to the normal six-month period. As suppression failed, the basis for confiscation and the connected fine and penalty also fell away.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether aluminium frames made from duty-paid aluminium sections by bending and drilling amounted to excisable goods liable to duty, (ii) whether the demand was barred by limitation for want of suppression, and (iii) whether fine and penalty were sustainable.

Issue (i): whether aluminium frames made from duty-paid aluminium sections by bending and drilling amounted to excisable goods liable to duty

Analysis: The frames were found to be covered by specific tariff headings under the Central Excise Tariff. Once a manufactured item falls within a tariff entry, it answers the description of excisable goods. In such a case, the argument that the article was not known in the market or lacked independent marketability was not decisive. The relevant enquiry was whether the product fitted the tariff description and had emerged as a distinct article.

Conclusion: The aluminium frames were excisable goods and liable to duty; the marketability objection failed.

Issue (ii): whether the demand was barred by limitation for want of suppression

Analysis: Under the self-removal scheme, the assessee was required to make a full disclosure in the classification list. However, mere omission was not enough to establish suppression. The governing principle required something positive, beyond inaction or failure, to justify invocation of the extended period. On the facts, the demand could not be sustained for the extended period and had to be confined to the normal limitation period of six months. The later notice, which introduced a different classification basis and revised duty consequences, could not be treated as a continuation of the earlier notice so as to enlarge the demand beyond the permissible period.

Conclusion: Suppression was not established and the demand was restricted to six months.

Issue (iii): whether fine and penalty were sustainable

Analysis: Since suppression was not made out, the foundation for confiscation and the consequential monetary consequences did not survive.

Conclusion: Fine and penalty were set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded to the extent that the duty demand was confined to the normal period and the penalty-related consequences were vacated, while the goods remained dutiable as excisable goods.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a manufactured product is specifically covered by a tariff entry, it is excisable goods and marketability is not decisive; the extended period of limitation requires proof of positive suppression, not mere omission.

---