Limitation in misclassification disputes turns on disclosure and suppression, with declared classification defeating extended-period invocation.

A wrong claim of classification, by itself, did not amount to suppression of facts or misstatement for invoking the extended period of limitation where the assessee had disclosed the classification in its declaration under Rule 173B. The Revenue had the opportunity and jurisdiction to object to the declared heading, so the demand based on alleged misclassification could not automatically overcome the limitation objection. On that basis, the appellant was found to have a strong prima facie case on limitation, and unconditional stay was granted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant had a prima facie case on limitation in a stay application where duty demand was raised on the basis of alleged misclassification of goods.

Analysis: The demand was based on the view that handles and hinges manufactured for motor vehicles were classifiable under Heading 8302.00 and not under Heading 8708.00. The declaration filed by the appellant under Rule 173B had disclosed classification under Heading 8708.00. The order records that the Revenue had the opportunity and jurisdiction to object to the declared classification, and that a wrong claim of classification could not, by itself, be equated with suppression of facts or misstatement so as to justify invocation of the extended period of limitation.

Conclusion: The appellant was held to have a good prima facie case on limitation, and stay was granted unconditionally.

---