Specific tariff entry prevails over residuary entry; disclosed facts also defeat extended limitation for alleged suppression.

Laboratory glassware and its component articles were held classifiable under Heading 70.12, because the specific tariff description covered the goods and the HSN inclusion note supported a broad reading; Heading 70.15, as a residuary entry, could not prevail over the specific classification. The demand was also found time-barred because the assessees had disclosed the nature of manufacture and clearances in declarations and returns, so suppression or misstatement could not be alleged to justify the extended period. The department's classification and the resulting duty demands and penalties were therefore set aside, with consequential relief to the assessees.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the glassware manufactured and cleared by the assessees was classifiable under Heading 70.12 as laboratory glassware or under Heading 70.15 as other articles of glass; (ii) Whether the demand was barred by limitation on account of absence of suppression or misstatement.

Issue (i): Whether the glassware manufactured and cleared by the assessees was classifiable under Heading 70.12 as laboratory glassware or under Heading 70.15 as other articles of glass.

Analysis: The disputed goods were found to consist of laboratory glassware and its component articles, including items specifically covered by the tariff description for laboratory glassware. The inclusion note in the HSN for the corresponding heading supported a broad construction of laboratory glassware and did not exclude such goods merely because they were assembled into complete units or used in industrial settings. Heading 70.15 was treated as a residuary entry, applicable only when the goods did not fall under the earlier heading, and could not displace a specific tariff entry for laboratory glassware.

Conclusion: The goods were correctly classifiable under Heading 70.12 and not under Heading 70.15, in favour of the assessees.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand was barred by limitation on account of absence of suppression or misstatement.

Analysis: The assessees had filed declarations and other returns with the department disclosing the nature of manufacture and clearances. Since the department had notice of the relevant facts and had the opportunity to examine the declarations, suppression could not be alleged to justify invocation of the extended period. The demand based on extended limitation therefore could not stand.

Conclusion: The demand was barred by limitation insofar as it depended on suppression or extended period invocation, in favour of the assessees.

Final Conclusion: The classification adopted by the department was rejected and the duty demands and penalties did not survive, with consequential relief granted to the assessees.

Ratio Decidendi: Specific tariff entries prevail over residuary entries, and when the department has prior disclosure of the relevant facts through declarations or returns, the extended period for recovery cannot be invoked on the basis of suppression.

---