https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73321 Extended limitation could not be invoked without proof of deliberate suppression or wilful misstatement where the manufacturer had disclosed the classification in approved lists and the true effect of the levy change was not understood by the parties until later communication. The demand for the earlier period therefore failed on the suppression issue. Penalty under the excise rules also could not stand in the absence of mens rea, since it rested only on the same alleged suppression and no culpable intent was established. The penal levy was set aside. en-us Tue, 14 Jun 1983 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 31 May 2011 11:19:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73321 Extended limitation could not be invoked without proof of deliberate suppression or wilful misstatement where the manufacturer had disclosed the classification in approved lists and the true effect of the levy change was not understood by the parties until later communication. The demand for the earlier period therefore failed on the suppression issue. Penalty under the excise rules also could not stand in the absence of mens rea, since it rested only on the same alleged suppression and no culpable intent was established. The penal levy was set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 14 Jun 1983 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73321