ORDER
Gowri Shankar, Member (T)
1. In the order impugned in this appeal the Commissioner has confirmed the duty demanded from the appellant in the show cause notice dated 4.9.1992 for clearances of coated textile fabrics made between 1.3.1987 to 11.6.1989. The notice invoked the extended period contained in the proviso under sub-section (1) of Section 11A of the Act.
2. The appellant manufactures its product by coating knitted cotton fabrics with plastic. It had filed classification list for the goods claiming the benefit of exemption under entry to table to notification 63/87. This entry exempts from duty textile fabrics impregnated, coated, covered or laminated with plastics classifiable under heading 5903.19. This entry exempts the goods from duty in excess of Rs. 6.50 per square metre plus duty for the time being leviable on the base fabrics under Chapter 52 if not already paid. In the classification list that the appellant had filed it had indicated description of the goods as textile fabrics impregnated, coated, covered or laminated with plastics or base fabrics of 100% cotton unprocessed. It had indicated Chapter heading 59.03. The notice alleged suppression in the classification list of the fact that the fabrics was classifiable not under Chapter 52 but under 60, nor get the benefit of the notification.
3. A moment’s reflection will show that this charge of suppression cannot sustain. While cotton fabrics are generally classifiable under Chapter 52, knitted cotton fabrics are classifiable under Chapter 60. This is a basic fact of which the departmental officers would have been aware. Even if they were not so aware would easily become aware by glancing at the tariff. Failure to indicate the classification of the knitted fabrics in Chapter 60 cannot be considered to be suppression with intent to evade duty. We therefore hold that the extended period of limitation will not be available. We have not dealt with the arguments that were raised on merits.
4. Appeal allowed and the impugned order set aside.