Appeal allowed on limitation ground due to correct classification and absence of duty evasion intent.

The appeal was allowed solely on the ground of limitation as the Bench found that the appellant had correctly indicated changes in classification and there was no intent to evade duty. The invocation of the extended period for demanding differential duty was deemed unsustainable, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order. The decision to allow the appeal on the limitation ground was pronounced in the operative part of the order.

---

---

Issues:
1. Demands raised beyond the period of limitation.

Analysis:
The appeal was initially disposed of on merits, but an application for rectification of mistake (ROM) was filed to address the issue of demands raised beyond the period of limitation. The Bench acknowledged the error in the final order and listed the appeal for disposal to hear both sides on the question of limitation.

The appellant argued that they had changed the classification of their product in the monthly returns filed for September 2008, but the Revenue authorities continued to demand differential duty for the period September 2008 to March 2009 invoking the extended period of limitation. The appellant cited similar cases where the orders on limitation were set aside by the Bench, supporting their argument.

The Departmental Representative (DR) contended that there was suppression of facts, justifying the invocation of the extended period for demanding differential duty.

Upon careful consideration, the Bench focused on whether the demand for differential duty for the specified period was hit by limitation. It was observed that the appellant had indicated the change in classification in the monthly returns and corresponded with the authorities regarding the same. The Bench found that the invocation of the extended period was unsustainable as there was no intent to evade duty, and the appellants had correctly indicated clearances under the nil rate of duty.

Referring to a previous case, the Bench concluded that the appellants could have genuinely believed in the classification of the product under a specific chapter until a certain date. Therefore, the plea of limitation raised by the appellant was answered in their favor, and the appeal was allowed solely on the ground of limitation, setting aside the impugned order.

In the operative portion of the order, the Bench pronounced the decision to allow the appeal on the ground of limitation, thereby setting aside the impugned order based on the detailed analysis provided.

---