Rainbow Surgical Dressing Mfg. Co. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 30 December, 1980
6. It is next contended that the extended period of limitation will not be available to the department because there has been no suppression; the appellant had declared the goods in its classification list as it cleared the goods during part of the period as part of an air motor and during the remaining period as a part in Heading 84.83. This includes parts suitable for use solely or principally with the machinery of Headings 84.25 to 84.30 - pulley tackle and hoists other than skip hoists, winches and capstans; jacks, fork-lift trucks, other works trucks fitted with lifting or handling equipment etc. other lifting, handling and loading or unloading machinery; bull-dozer and similar machinery; other moving grading, levelling, scraping etc. machinery. The conclusion of the Commissioner from this is that the appellant had not declared at any time the goods under consideration as pinion. We do not see how from the description of the goods either as parts or motors or part of any of the other machinery that we have briefly referred to, the departmental officers would have been in a position to conclude that the goods, the classification 'of which they approved as claimed, were, in fact, gearing or gear. We are therefore of the view that the extended period of limitation has rightly been invoked. The ratio of the Supreme Court's judgment in Rainbow Industries v. Union of India 1994 (74) E.L.T. 3 will not apply.