Misdeclaration in classification list can still justify extended limitation where departmental scrutiny reveals the correct excise classification.

Approval of a classification list does not prevent the Department from invoking the extended limitation period where goods are misdeclared and the correct classification is discovered only on departmental scrutiny. The text states that plain glass tubes were shown with laboratory glassware, but factory inspection revealed the true nature of the goods. On that basis, there was no estoppel against the Department, and the longer period under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act could still be applied. The demand and penalty were therefore sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could be invoked on the ground of suppression and misdeclaration despite approval of the classification list.

Analysis: The classification list showed the plain glass tubes along with laboratory glassware, but the departmental officers detected the wrong classification only on visiting the factory. The goods were found to be simple glass tubes and not laboratory glassware. In these circumstances, the earlier approval of the classification list did not preclude the Department from adopting the correct classification or invoking the longer period for demand. There was no estoppel against the Department in such matters.

Conclusion: The invocation of the extended period was upheld and the demand was sustained.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed and the order confirming duty and penalty was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Approval of a classification list does not bar the Department from invoking the extended period where the assessee has misdeclared the goods and the correct classification is discovered only on departmental scrutiny.

---