https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73796 Duty demand was confined to the normal six-month limitation period because the record showed disclosure of the relevant facts to the department. The assessee had obtained a Central Excise licence, furnished particulars of the goods and turnover, and sought departmental guidance, which negatived any allegation of concealment or deliberate misstatement. A delay in filing the classification list was only a procedural lapse and did not by itself establish suppression. As the longer limitation period depended on proof of suppression or misstatement, and that foundation was absent, the extended limitation provision was not attracted. en-us Tue, 12 Jul 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 03 Jun 2011 16:25:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73796 Duty demand was confined to the normal six-month limitation period because the record showed disclosure of the relevant facts to the department. The assessee had obtained a Central Excise licence, furnished particulars of the goods and turnover, and sought departmental guidance, which negatived any allegation of concealment or deliberate misstatement. A delay in filing the classification list was only a procedural lapse and did not by itself establish suppression. As the longer limitation period depended on proof of suppression or misstatement, and that foundation was absent, the extended limitation provision was not attracted. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 12 Jul 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73796