https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73174 Extended limitation for excise duty demands requires proof of suppression or wilful misstatement by the assessee; a mere claim in the classification list that goods are non-excisable is not enough where the Department already knew the relevant facts and had been considering the classification. The document notes that the product classification was a mixed question of law and fact, and the extended five-year period was therefore unavailable, leaving the demand confined to the normal six-month period. It also states that penalty was not sustainable because the assessee cooperated and no culpable concealment was shown. The penalty was accordingly set aside. en-us Thu, 02 Jul 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 30 May 2011 10:50:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73174 Extended limitation for excise duty demands requires proof of suppression or wilful misstatement by the assessee; a mere claim in the classification list that goods are non-excisable is not enough where the Department already knew the relevant facts and had been considering the classification. The document notes that the product classification was a mixed question of law and fact, and the extended five-year period was therefore unavailable, leaving the demand confined to the normal six-month period. It also states that penalty was not sustainable because the assessee cooperated and no culpable concealment was shown. The penalty was accordingly set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 02 Jul 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73174