Extended limitation in central excise cannot stand without misdeclaration or concealment when classification was disclosed and accepted.

Extended limitation for central excise demand was not sustainable where the assessee had filed classification lists, correctly described the product, and the Revenue had accepted the classification and returns. On those facts, there was no misdeclaration or concealment by the assessee, so the longer period could not be invoked merely because an earlier Tribunal decision existed. The limitation objection therefore failed, and the demand and penalty could not survive on that basis.

---

---

Issues: Whether invocation of the extended period of limitation was sustainable in a demand of central excise duty and penalty where the assessee had filed classification lists, declared the product description, and the Revenue had accepted the classification.

Analysis: The classification lists filed for the relevant years described the product correctly, and the Revenue had accepted the classification claimed by the assessee. The returns were also stated to have been filed and approved. On these facts, there was no misdeclaration or concealment attributable to the assessee. The record did not show any basis to justify the longer period of limitation merely because an earlier Tribunal decision existed.

Conclusion: The invocation of the extended period of limitation was not justified, and the appeal succeeded on limitation.

---