Classification dispute on Tacodur T-75: lack of evidence for complementary use defeated extended limitation and supported waiver of pre-deposit.

Classification of Tacodur T-75 turned on whether it fell under Heading 29.42 or Heading 35.06 as an adhesive-related product. The tribunal noted that Note 2 to Section VI applied only if the goods were shown to be intended for complementary use and cleared together with another product, and the record did not establish that factual basis. As earlier classification lists had been approved by the Assistant Collector, the demand relating to those clearances was not supported by suppression, so the extended period could not be invoked. On that prima facie assessment, pre-deposit of duty and penalty was waived and recovery stayed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicant had made out a prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit in a classification dispute concerning Tacodur T-75, and whether the demand could be sustained by invoking the extended period on the allegation of suppression.

Analysis: The product was claimed under Heading 29.42, while the department sought classification under Heading 35.06 on the basis that it was used with another product to form an adhesive. The applicability of Note 2 to Section VI depended on proof that the products were intended to be used complementarily and were cleared together. The record did not show such evidence. The classification lists for earlier years had been approved by the Assistant Collector, and the demand covered clearances made during the period of approved classification. On that basis, suppression for invoking the extended period was not established.

Outcome: The applicant was held to have a strong prima facie case, and pre-deposit of duty and penalty was waived with stay of recovery.

---