Commercial plywood classification and limitation: shuttering plywood stayed outside the excluded category, and the extended demand was time-barred.

Shuttering plywood was treated as a distinct commercial commodity from structural plywood because separate ISI specifications and prior Tribunal rulings showed the two products were not interchangeable. Since Notification No. 55/79 excluded only structural plywood from the scope of commercial plywood, the goods were classifiable as commercial plywood and attracted duty at the applicable ad valorem rate. On limitation, the extended demand failed because the show cause notice did not allege suppression or mis-statement and did not invoke the proviso to the limitation provision. Accordingly, the demand beyond six months was time-barred and relief was granted on both classification and limitation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the plywood described as shuttering plywood was classifiable as structural plywood or as commercial plywood for the purpose of duty under Notification No. 55/79; (ii) Whether the extended demand was barred by limitation.

Issue (i): Whether the plywood described as shuttering plywood was classifiable as structural plywood or as commercial plywood for the purpose of duty under Notification No. 55/79.

Analysis: The goods were treated by the Court as a different commercial category from structural plywood, supported by the existence of separate ISI specifications for shuttering plywood and structural plywood. The prior Tribunal decisions relied upon had already held that shuttering plywood and structural plywood are distinct commodities. Since the notification excluded only structural plywood from the ambit of commercial plywood, goods described as shuttering plywood did not fall within the excluded category.

Conclusion: The goods were held to be commercial plywood and liable only to duty at 20% ad valorem, not at the higher rate applicable to structural plywood.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended demand was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The show cause notice did not allege suppression or mis-statement and did not invoke the proviso to the relevant limitation provision. In the absence of such averments, the demand beyond six months could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The demand beyond six months was held to be time-barred.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the order under challenge was set aside, with relief granted to the assessee on both classification and limitation.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a notification excludes only a specifically identified commodity, goods having distinct commercial identity and separate technical specifications cannot be treated as that excluded commodity; and an extended excise demand cannot survive in the absence of pleaded and invoked grounds of suppression or mis-statement.

---