Extended limitation barred in pentane classification dispute absent suppression or misstatement

Extended limitation could not be invoked for the pentane classification dispute because the assessee had filed classification declarations, disclosed the manufacturing process, and the department was already aware of the classification position in other units. A dispute confined to the correct tariff heading, without concealment of material facts, did not constitute suppression or misstatement. On that basis, the demand was held time-barred, and the duty demand and penalty were set aside with consequential relief.

---

---

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked against the assessee on the allegation of suppression or misstatement in relation to the classification of pentane.

Analysis: The assessee had filed classification declarations showing the product under the claimed tariff heading and had also disclosed the manufacturing process. The same product had been treated similarly in other units of the assessee, and the department had earlier been aware of the classification position. A mere dispute on correct classification, without concealment of material facts, does not amount to suppression so as to attract the extended limitation period.

Conclusion: The invocation of the extended period was not justified and the demand was barred by limitation.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded on limitation, and the duty demand and penalty were set aside with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the assessee has made full classification disclosure and the dispute is only about correct tariff classification, extended limitation cannot be invoked in the absence of deliberate suppression or misstatement.

---