https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85954 Extended limitation under the proviso to Section 11A(1) was not available because the assessee had disclosed the product to the department through declarations, samples and correspondence, and suppression or deliberate misstatement was not established; the time-barred demand beyond six months therefore failed. The claim for exemption under Notification No. 269/86-C.E. required fresh factual and technical examination because prior correspondence did not conclusively determine satisfaction of the notification conditions; that issue was remanded for de novo consideration. Classification was treated as accepted, while ancillary matters were left open for reconsideration on remand. en-us Fri, 18 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 09 Aug 2011 12:08:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85954 Extended limitation under the proviso to Section 11A(1) was not available because the assessee had disclosed the product to the department through declarations, samples and correspondence, and suppression or deliberate misstatement was not established; the time-barred demand beyond six months therefore failed. The claim for exemption under Notification No. 269/86-C.E. required fresh factual and technical examination because prior correspondence did not conclusively determine satisfaction of the notification conditions; that issue was remanded for de novo consideration. Classification was treated as accepted, while ancillary matters were left open for reconsideration on remand. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 18 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85954