Classification of shutter lath and limitation under excise law: approved disclosure barred the extended period and the demand failed.

Shutter lath was treated as a component of a shutter and classified under sub-heading 7308.90 rather than as an iron and steel section under sub-heading 7216.20. On limitation, disclosure of the product in an approved classification list meant suppression or misdeclaration was not established, so the extended period under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could not be invoked. The duty demand and consequential penalty were set aside, and the appeal succeeded.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Shutter Lath was classifiable under sub-heading 7216.20 or under sub-heading 7308.90 of the Central Excise Tariff; (ii) Whether the demand was barred by limitation and the extended period could be invoked.

Issue (i): Whether Shutter Lath was classifiable under sub-heading 7216.20 or under sub-heading 7308.90 of the Central Excise Tariff.

Analysis: The product was found to be a part of a shutter and, therefore, specifically answerable to the heading referring to shutters. It was not treated as an iron and steel section falling under Heading 7216.

Conclusion: The classification under sub-heading 7308.90 was upheld, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand was barred by limitation and the extended period could be invoked.

Analysis: The product description had been disclosed in the classification list, which had been approved by the Department. On those facts, suppression or misdeclaration was not established, and the demand was held to be beyond the permissible time under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Conclusion: The extended period was held inapplicable and the demand was time-barred, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The duty demand and the consequential penalty were set aside, and the appeal succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the classification list discloses the product and is approved by the Department, suppression or misdeclaration cannot be alleged to invoke the extended period of limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

---