Tariff reclassification and suppression of facts can justify the extended limitation period under excise law.

After a tariff amendment, continuing clearances on an old approved classification list without filing a fresh list can amount to suppression of material facts where the earlier disclosure does not enable correct reclassification. Here, the classification list stated composition only in general terms and omitted percentage composition, which prevented proper assessment under the new tariff regime. On that basis, the limitation defence failed and the extended period under excise law was held invocable, so the demand was not time-barred.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand of duty for the period after the tariff amendment was barred by limitation in the absence of suppression of facts or wilful mis-statement, and whether the assessee's failure to file a fresh classification list justified invocation of the extended period.

Analysis: The goods had been classified under the earlier tariff entry, but the tariff structure changed with effect from 1-3-1987. The assessee continued clearances on the basis of the old approved classification list and did not file a fresh classification list after the change in law. The classification list disclosed the composition only in general terms and did not give the percentage composition, which prevented correct reclassification. In these circumstances, the assessee could not claim full disclosure for the new tariff regime, and the failure to furnish a fresh classification list amounted to suppression of material facts for the purpose of limitation under the excise law.

Conclusion: The demand was not time-barred, and invocation of the extended period was sustained against the assessee.

---