Classification records and returns can defeat extended limitation and support waiver of pre-deposit where deliberate misclassification is not prima facie shown.

Approved classification lists, assessed RT-12 returns and disclosure of the commodity to the Department were treated as prima facie evidence against deliberate misclassification. On that record, the extended period of limitation was not justified at the interim stage, because there was no sufficient basis to infer suppression or intentional misdescription. The balance of convenience was found to favour interim protection, and the requirement of pre-deposit of duty and penalty was waived while recovery was stayed pending appeal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicants had made out a prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery on the ground that the demand was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The classification dispute itself was left for final hearing, but the record showed approved classification lists, assessed RT-12 returns, and disclosure of the commodity to the Department. On that basis, there was no prima facie material to infer deliberate misclassification so as to justify invocation of the extended period of limitation. The balance of convenience therefore favoured grant of interim relief.

Conclusion: The requirement of pre-deposit of duty and penalty was waived and recovery was stayed pending appeal, in favour of the applicants.

Ratio Decidendi: Approved disclosure of the goods in classification records and returns may negate prima facie deliberate misclassification and, at the interim stage, defeat invocation of the extended period of limitation for pre-deposit and recovery.

---