Classification dispute and alleged suppression: extended limitation period could not be invoked where the claim was consistently disclosed.

A revised classification list filed after the annual Finance Bill was treated as a revised list, not as evidence of suppression. The assessee had consistently claimed classification under the disputed sub-headings, and the Department was aware of that claim. On those facts, refusal to accept the classification position could not amount to suppression of facts with intent to evade duty, so the extended period of limitation was unavailable and the demand was barred by time.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand was barred by limitation on the ground that the assessee had suppressed facts or mis-stated the classification of the goods.

Analysis: The fresh classification list filed after the annual Finance Bill was treated as a revised list and not as evidence of suppression. The assessee had consistently maintained its claim to classification under the disputed sub-headings, and the Department was aware of that claim. In these circumstances, the failure to accept the classification claim could not be treated as suppression of facts with intent to evade duty, and the extended period could not be invoked.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not available to the Department and the demand was barred by time.

---