https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72108 A bona fide dispute over tariff classification did not amount to mis-statement or wilful mis-statement for extending limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, so the ordinary six-month period applied and the five-year period was unavailable. For valuation, duty had to be computed under Rule 9A(1)(ii) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, because the rate and tariff valuation were to be taken as on the date of actual removal of the goods; the residuary Rule 9A(5) could not be used where the specific rule applied and the clearances were supported by proper excise papers. en-us Tue, 03 Sep 1985 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 12 May 2011 10:37:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72108 A bona fide dispute over tariff classification did not amount to mis-statement or wilful mis-statement for extending limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, so the ordinary six-month period applied and the five-year period was unavailable. For valuation, duty had to be computed under Rule 9A(1)(ii) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, because the rate and tariff valuation were to be taken as on the date of actual removal of the goods; the residuary Rule 9A(5) could not be used where the specific rule applied and the clearances were supported by proper excise papers. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 03 Sep 1985 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72108