Motor starters classification prevails over residuary entry; wrong description in records justified extended limitation.

Goods described in invoices and the assessee's records as flame-proof starters were held to fall within the specific tariff entry for motor starters, because added features such as flame-proof construction, reversing function, short-circuit protection and current transformers did not take them outside that description. The residuary entry was therefore inapplicable. The extended period of limitation was also upheld because the assessee classified the goods as LT and HT switchboard items despite clearing starters, and that incomplete and wrong description was found to have misled the department. The appeal failed on both classification and limitation, and the departmental orders were sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the goods manufactured and cleared by the assessee were correctly classifiable as motor starters under Item No. 30B of the First Schedule to the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944, or as residuary goods under Item No. 68; (ii) Whether the extended period of limitation was validly invoked on the ground of suppression and misdeclaration.

Issue (i): Whether the goods manufactured and cleared by the assessee were correctly classifiable as motor starters under Item No. 30B of the First Schedule to the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944, or as residuary goods under Item No. 68.

Analysis: The goods were described in the invoices and other documents as flame proof starters, and the assessee's own records showed them to be starters rather than switch boards or mere control panels. The addition of features such as flame proof construction, reversing function, short circuit protection, and current transformers did not take the goods outside the scope of motor starters. The residuary entry could not be applied where the goods answered the specific tariff description of motor starters.

Conclusion: The goods were correctly classifiable under Item No. 30B and not under Item No. 68, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended period of limitation was validly invoked on the ground of suppression and misdeclaration.

Analysis: The assessee had described the goods in the classification list as LT and HT switch board items, although the goods cleared were starters. The description was held to be incomplete and wrong, and the record showed that the department was misled about the true nature of the goods. On the facts recorded, the ingredients for invoking the extended period were present.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was rightly invoked, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on both classification and limitation, and the departmental orders were sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where goods specifically answer the tariff description of motor starters, additional features do not shift them to a residuary entry, and deliberate wrong description of the goods in classification documents justifies invocation of the extended limitation period.

---