Limitation for central excise duty demand failed where approved classification lists and no suppression negated extended period invocation.

A duty demand raised beyond the normal six-month limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act was not sustained because the assessee had filed classification lists that were approved by the proper officer. Suppression of facts with intent to evade duty was not established, and there was no misdescription of the product or disclosed statutory duty to declare raw materials or component parts at that stage. Section 110 of the Finance Act, 2000 was held not to revive or extend limitation on these facts, so the demand remained time-barred.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand of duty raised by the show cause notice was barred by limitation in the facts of the case, and whether the retrospective amendment could validate invocation of the extended period despite approved classification lists.

Analysis: The appeal turned on limitation. The show cause notice was issued beyond the normal six-month period under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The record showed that the assessee had filed classification lists which were approved by the proper officer, and there was no misdescription of the product or statutory requirement to declare raw materials or component parts at that stage. The basis for invoking the longer period, namely suppression of facts with intent to evade duty, was not established. Section 110 of the Finance Act, 2000 was held not to authorize recovery by extending limitation in a case where the classification lists had already been filed and approved.

Conclusion: The demand was barred by limitation and the appeal succeeded on that ground.

---