Classification of crane clearances turns on proof of identical facts; absence of evidence supports parts classification and extended limitation.

Prior classification rulings bind only where the later clearances are shown to be factually identical to the earlier case. Here, the assessee failed to produce work orders, purchase orders, or other evidence proving that the goods were complete cranes supplied in knocked-down condition; the statutory records instead supported a finding of crane parts. On that basis, the Revenue's classification was upheld. The incorrect description in the records was treated as suppression of the true facts with intent to evade duty, so the extended limitation period was available and the penalty was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the goods cleared from the Adityapur unit were complete cranes in semi-knocked down condition or merely parts of cranes for excise classification; (ii) Whether the demand was barred by limitation and the penalty was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the goods cleared from the Adityapur unit were complete cranes in semi-knocked down condition or merely parts of cranes for excise classification?

Analysis: The majority held that the earlier Patna High Court judgment, though challenged, continued to hold the field and could not by itself determine the character of the present clearances in the absence of supporting evidence. The appellants did not produce work orders, purchase orders, or other material to show that the present clearances were complete cranes assembled and supplied in knocked down condition as in the earlier case. The statutory records and the admitted position indicated clearances of parts of cranes. The burden to establish identity with the earlier fact situation lay on the appellants, and that burden was not discharged.

Conclusion: The goods were held to be parts of cranes and not complete cranes; the classification adopted by Revenue was upheld, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand was barred by limitation and the penalty was sustainable?

Analysis: The majority found that the show cause notice was issued beyond the normal period, but the appellants had not established that the clearances were correctly described as cranes. In the absence of proof supporting the claim of complete cranes, the incorrect description in the classification list and statutory records amounted to suppression of the true facts with intent to evade duty. On that footing, the extended period was held available and the penalty was not disturbed.

Conclusion: The demand was held to be within limitation by invocation of the extended period, and the penalty was sustained, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The majority view prevailed, resulting in affirmation of duty liability and penalty on the footing that the clearances were parts of cranes and not complete cranes.

Ratio Decidendi: A prior classification ruling binds the parties only to the extent of the facts actually proved in the later proceeding, and where the assessee fails to establish that the present clearances are identical to the earlier fact situation, the burden is not discharged and the extended period may be invoked when the true nature of the clearances is not correctly disclosed.

---