https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81057 Krinklglas was held not to fall under the plastics tariff where the product was a composite of methyl methacrylate monomer, polyester resin and fibre glass reinforcement, because goods under the plastics entry must be wholly of plastics and not made of plastics with other materials. It was therefore classified under Item 68 for the pre-01.03.1986 period. The materials on record also did not establish deliberate suppression or misdeclaration, so the extended limitation period was unavailable and the demand could survive only from 19.08.1985. In the absence of proved suppression or mala fide conduct, penalty was not sustainable and was set aside; post-1986 classification was left for fresh determination on remand. en-us Mon, 04 Feb 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 22 Jun 2011 11:29:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81057 Krinklglas was held not to fall under the plastics tariff where the product was a composite of methyl methacrylate monomer, polyester resin and fibre glass reinforcement, because goods under the plastics entry must be wholly of plastics and not made of plastics with other materials. It was therefore classified under Item 68 for the pre-01.03.1986 period. The materials on record also did not establish deliberate suppression or misdeclaration, so the extended limitation period was unavailable and the demand could survive only from 19.08.1985. In the absence of proved suppression or mala fide conduct, penalty was not sustainable and was set aside; post-1986 classification was left for fresh determination on remand. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 04 Feb 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81057