https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77326 Printer ink sold and used as jet ink was held classifiable under Sub-Heading 3215.90, because the formulation, chemical test report and buyer statements showed it was not aqueous writing ink under Sub-Heading 3215.10. The assessee's declaration as writing ink was inconsistent with the product's actual commercial use, so suppression of material facts was established and the extended period of limitation was correctly invoked. Penalty under Section 11AC was sustained for the first notice where suppression with intent to evade duty was found, but was set aside for the second notice because the proviso to Section 11A(1) had not been invoked. The matter was remanded for limited re-quantification of duty and consequential penalty after cum-duty and input credit benefits. en-us Thu, 19 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 07 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77326 Printer ink sold and used as jet ink was held classifiable under Sub-Heading 3215.90, because the formulation, chemical test report and buyer statements showed it was not aqueous writing ink under Sub-Heading 3215.10. The assessee's declaration as writing ink was inconsistent with the product's actual commercial use, so suppression of material facts was established and the extended period of limitation was correctly invoked. Penalty under Section 11AC was sustained for the first notice where suppression with intent to evade duty was found, but was set aside for the second notice because the proviso to Section 11A(1) had not been invoked. The matter was remanded for limited re-quantification of duty and consequential penalty after cum-duty and input credit benefits. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 19 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77326