Exemption under tariff notification cannot cover Chapter 84 goods before amendment, and extended limitation may apply for non-disclosure.

An exemption confined to agricultural implements and parts classifiable under Chapter 82 could not be extended to parts of agricultural machinery admittedly falling under Chapter 84 for the period before the amendment brought Chapter 84 goods within the notification's scope. The later enlargement of the exemption operated only from 14-3-1986, so the benefit was unavailable for the disputed earlier period. On limitation, the demand was not held time-barred because the notices alleged non-disclosure of the true nature of the goods, and that allegation was not shown to be incorrect on the record. The extended period under Section 11A was therefore treated as validly invoked.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether parts of agricultural machinery classifiable under Chapter 84 were entitled to exemption under Notification No. 64/86 for the period from 1-3-1986 to 13-3-1986. (ii) Whether the demand was barred by limitation and the extended period under Section 11A could be invoked.

Issue (i): Whether parts of agricultural machinery classifiable under Chapter 84 were entitled to exemption under Notification No. 64/86 for the period from 1-3-1986 to 13-3-1986.

Analysis: The exemption, as originally issued, covered agricultural implements and parts thereof falling under Chapter 82. The subsequent amendment brought Chapter 84 goods within its scope only from 14-3-1986. The goods in question were admittedly classifiable under Chapter 84 and not under Chapter 82. The claimed benefit could not be extended on the basis of the later clarification or amendment for the prior period.

Conclusion: The exemption was not available to the goods for the disputed period.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand was barred by limitation and the extended period under Section 11A could be invoked.

Analysis: The notices alleged that the assessee did not disclose the true nature of the goods and described them only as parts of agricultural implements. The record did not establish that this allegation was incorrect, nor was it shown that the authority had been persuaded that the declarations themselves revealed Chapter 84 classification. On that basis, the invocation of the extended period could not be held invalid.

Conclusion: The demand was not barred by limitation and the extended period was validly invoked.

Final Conclusion: The exemption claim failed and the limitation objection was rejected, so the orders under challenge were left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: An exemption confined to goods classified under one tariff chapter cannot be extended to goods admittedly falling under another chapter merely because a later amendment or clarification enlarges the scope from a subsequent date; where the declaration does not disclose the true nature of the goods, the extended limitation period may be invoked.

---