Specific tariff classification for engine parts prevails over motor vehicle parts, while duty demand is limited by the six-month limitation period.

Pistons manufactured for motor vehicles were classified under Heading 8409 as engine parts rather than under the broader Heading 8708 for motor vehicle parts and accessories, because the more specific tariff entry for parts used solely or principally with engines prevailed. The classification was therefore against the assessee. The duty demand was sustainable only for the period within six months from the notice, and the portion beyond that limitation period was time-barred. The demand was accordingly confined to the permissible six-month period and required recalculation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether pistons manufactured for motor vehicles were classifiable under Heading 8708 as parts and accessories of motor vehicles or under Heading 8409 as parts suitable for use solely or principally with engines. (ii) Whether the duty demand could be sustained only for the period within six months from the date of notice.

Issue (i): Whether pistons manufactured for motor vehicles were classifiable under Heading 8708 as parts and accessories of motor vehicles or under Heading 8409 as parts suitable for use solely or principally with engines.

Analysis: Heading 8708 covers parts and accessories of motor vehicles, whereas Heading 8409 is a more specific entry covering parts suitable for use solely or principally with engines. Since pistons are admittedly engine parts, the specific tariff entry was held to govern. The classification was also supported by the earlier tribunal view relied upon in the order.

Conclusion: The goods were held classifiable under Heading 8409 and not under Heading 8708, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the duty demand could be sustained only for the period within six months from the date of notice.

Analysis: The notice covered a period beyond six months prior to its issue. The demand beyond the six-month period was held to be time-barred, while the demand within the permissible six months was held sustainable.

Conclusion: The demand was upheld only to the extent of six months and was otherwise time-barred, partly in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on the classification issue, but the duty demand was confined to the permissible six-month period, with recalculation directed accordingly.

Ratio Decidendi: Where one tariff entry is specific to the use and character of the goods, it prevails over a broader entry, and a duty demand cannot be sustained beyond the permissible limitation period.

---