Copper concentrate classification under Chapter 26 and extended limitation failed where no suppression or intent to evade duty was proved.

Rich copper concentrate obtained from oxide ore through crushing, grinding, leaching and precipitation, without roasting, remained classifiable under Chapter Heading 26.03 because the process was only normal metallurgical preparation and did not alter the ore's basic chemical composition; Chapter Heading 74.01 for cement copper did not apply. The demand based on the show cause notice was also time-barred, as the record showed departmental awareness of the manufacture and clearances, disclosure by the assessee, and no proved suppression or intent to evade duty. On those facts, invocation of the extended limitation period was not sustainable and the classification and related duty consequences failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the product known as rich copper concentrate was classifiable under Chapter Heading 26.03 or Chapter Heading 74.01 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. (ii) Whether the demand raised by the show cause notice dated 29-11-1996 for the period November, 1991 to July, 1995 was barred by limitation.

Issue (i): Whether the product known as rich copper concentrate was classifiable under Chapter Heading 26.03 or Chapter Heading 74.01 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.

Analysis: The product was obtained from oxide ore through crushing, grinding and leaching, after which copper was precipitated from the aqueous solution. The record showed that the process did not involve roasting of ore. Chapter Note 2 to Chapter 26 permits ores submitted only to processes normal to the metallurgical industry, and the evidence did not show that the basic chemical composition of the ore had been altered so as to take the product out of Chapter 26. The description of cement copper in the HSN notes to Heading 74.01, which contemplates precipitation from leached roasted ore or residue, did not fit the manufacturing process found in the case.

Conclusion: The product was classifiable under Chapter Heading 26.03, not under Chapter Heading 74.01, and the classification and related duty and penalty could not stand against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand raised by the show cause notice dated 29-11-1996 for the period November, 1991 to July, 1995 was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The departmental correspondence showed that the authorities were aware of the manufacture and clearance of the product as rich copper concentrate. The assessee had disclosed the manufacturing process and classification dispute, and the materials did not establish suppression or intention to evade duty. The Tribunal also noted that the situation was revenue neutral because duty paid at the Malanjkhand unit would have been available as credit to the assessee's own units. In these circumstances, invocation of the extended period was not sustainable.

Conclusion: The demand was barred by limitation and the extended period under Section 11A(1) could not be invoked.

Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded on both classification and limitation, resulting in annulment of the impugned orders and grant of relief in the appeals.

Ratio Decidendi: Where ore is subjected only to processes normal to metallurgical preparation and the department cannot prove suppression or intent to evade duty, the product remains classifiable under Chapter 26 and the extended period of limitation is unavailable.

---