Classification of goods as cabinet parts fails absent proof of integral fitment, and full disclosure defeats extended limitation

Goods supplied together were not classifiable as parts of filing cabinets under Tariff Heading 94.03 because the classification records disclosed their nature and intended use, and there was no evidence that the kraft folders and steel interlinking channels formed integral components of the cabinets. The approved classification was therefore preferred, and the assessee's classification was upheld. Full disclosure in the classification lists also negatived suppression or wilful misstatement, so the extended limitation period could not be invoked. On that basis, the duty demand for the relevant period failed and the assessee obtained consequential relief.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether kraft folders and steel interlinking channels supplied together were classifiable as parts of filing cabinets under Tariff Heading 94.03 or under the headings claimed by the assessee. (ii) Whether the duty demand for the relevant period was barred by limitation and whether the extended period could be invoked on the basis of suppression or wilful misstatement.

Issue (i): Whether kraft folders and steel interlinking channels supplied together were classifiable as parts of filing cabinets under Tariff Heading 94.03 or under the headings claimed by the assessee.

Analysis: The approved classification lists had disclosed the nature of the goods and their intended use. No evidence showed that filing cabinets were sold along with the steel interlinking channels and kraft folders or that the items were fitted together as components of the cabinet. On the material available, the channels could at best be treated as accessories and not as parts of filing cabinets. The earlier approved classification was therefore preferred.

Conclusion: The classification under Tariff Heading 94.03 was not sustainable and the assessee's classification was upheld, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the duty demand for the relevant period was barred by limitation and whether the extended period could be invoked on the basis of suppression or wilful misstatement.

Analysis: The assessee had made full disclosure in the classification lists and the departmental authorities had approved them. In those circumstances, the allegation of wilful misstatement or suppression could not be sustained, and the extended period was not justified. The demand was also unsustainable on merits, making a detailed limitation ruling unnecessary.

Conclusion: The extended period could not be invoked and the demand was barred, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside, the appeal was allowed, and the assessee obtained consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Goods supplied together are not classifiable as parts of a machine or article unless the evidence shows that they are fitted into or form an integral component of that article; full disclosure in approved classification lists negatives suppression and defeats invocation of the extended limitation period.

---