https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77991 In central excise classification disputes, the extended limitation period under the proviso to section 11A(1) cannot be invoked absent suppression of facts or wilful misstatement with intent to evade duty. The Tribunal's factual finding of a bona fide belief, supported by a Board circular and earlier decisions, negatived the ingredients for extended limitation, and the HC found no legal error in that conclusion. After remand, the Tribunal was competent to examine limitation and the connected duty and penalty questions arising from the challenged order. Once the extended period failed, the demand beyond the normal period and the consequential penalty could not survive. en-us Wed, 07 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 25 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77991 In central excise classification disputes, the extended limitation period under the proviso to section 11A(1) cannot be invoked absent suppression of facts or wilful misstatement with intent to evade duty. The Tribunal's factual finding of a bona fide belief, supported by a Board circular and earlier decisions, negatived the ingredients for extended limitation, and the HC found no legal error in that conclusion. After remand, the Tribunal was competent to examine limitation and the connected duty and penalty questions arising from the challenged order. Once the extended period failed, the demand beyond the normal period and the consequential penalty could not survive. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 07 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77991