HSN Notes control tariff classification of ice cream cones, while disclosed facts defeat extended limitation for suppression.

Ice cream cones were held classifiable under Tariff Heading 1905.11 as biscuits, waffles and wafers, because the tariff did not define those terms and the HSN Notes, treated as an interpretive aid, expressly covered ice cream cornets or cones made from waffle dough. Trade opinions and departmental clarifications were not treated as controlling. On limitation, the extended period could not be invoked because the assessee had disclosed manufacture and the classification adopted; a disputed legal view on classification did not amount to suppression when the underlying facts were known to the department. The appeal therefore succeeded only on limitation and failed on classification.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether ice cream cones were correctly classifiable under Tariff Heading 1905.11 as biscuits, waffles and wafers, or under Tariff Heading 1905.90 as other bakery products; (ii) Whether the extended period of limitation was invocable.

Issue (i): Whether ice cream cones were correctly classifiable under Tariff Heading 1905.11 as biscuits, waffles and wafers, or under Tariff Heading 1905.90 as other bakery products.

Analysis: The tariff did not define the expressions "waffles" and "wafers", and the Central Excise Tariff being based on the Harmonized System of Nomenclature, the HSN Notes were treated as a reliable aid to interpretation. The HSN description of waffles and wafers expressly included ice cream cornets or cones made from waffle dough. In that view, trade opinions and departmental clarifications to the contrary were not accepted as determinative.

Conclusion: The correct classification was under Tariff Heading 1905.11, in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended period of limitation was invocable.

Analysis: The assessee had informed the department that it was manufacturing ice cream cones and had disclosed the classification adopted. A wrong view on classification was treated as a question of law and not a misstatement of fact. Since the relevant facts were known to the department, suppression was not established for invoking the longer limitation period.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not invocable, in favour of the Assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only on the limitation issue and failed on classification, resulting in a partial allowance.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the tariff entry is aligned with the HSN and the domestic tariff does not define the expression, HSN Notes may be used to determine classification; mere disclosure of facts with a disputed legal classification does not amount to suppression for extended limitation.

---