Extended limitation requires suppression or misstatement; approved classifications and final assessments barred the cess demand on automobile parts.

Approval of classification lists and final assessment of RT-12 returns indicated departmental acceptance that cess was not leviable on automobile parts and accessories. In these circumstances, no misstatement or suppression of facts with intent to evade duty could be attributed to the assessee, so the extended limitation period was unavailable. The demand for cess for the relevant period was therefore barred by limitation, and the assessee succeeded on that issue.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand of cess on parts and accessories of automobiles for the period 1 December 1990 to 25 May 1994 was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The approved classification lists and finalised RT-12 returns showed that the goods were being assessed with the understanding of the department that cess was not leviable on parts and accessories. Where the proper officer approved the classification and the returns were finally assessed, it could not be inferred that the assessee had made a misstatement or suppressed facts with intent to evade duty. In such circumstances, the extended period could not be invoked.

Conclusion: The demand was barred by limitation and the assessee succeeded on that issue.

Ratio Decidendi: Approval of classification lists and final assessment of returns by the department negates suppression or misstatement for invoking the extended limitation period.

---