Approved classification list defeats prima facie suppression claim and blocks extended limitation and penalty exposure.

An approved classification list describing the goods as sheets/blanks undermined any prima facie allegation of wilful misstatement or suppression of facts. On that basis, the extended period of limitation was held prima facie unavailable for the duty demand, so the demand appeared time-barred. Because the demand itself was not prima facie sustainable on limitation, penalty under Section 11AC was also not prima facie attracted. The result was that the applicants established a strong prima facie case on limitation and penalty, supporting unconditional stay of recovery.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand of duty was prima facie time-barred and whether penalty under Section 11AC was attracted so as to justify pre-deposit and stay of recovery.

Analysis: The declaration in the classification list showed the goods as sheets/blanks and had been approved by the department. On that basis, the allegation of wilful misstatement or suppression of facts was not supported at the prima facie stage. The Tribunal therefore found a strong prima facie case that the extended period of limitation was not available for the duty demand. Since the demand itself appeared time-barred, the penalty provision under Section 11AC was also not prima facie attracted.

Conclusion: The applicants succeeded on the prima facie question of limitation and penalty, and unconditional stay of recovery was warranted.

---