https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85961 Extended limitation under excise law could not be invoked because suppression of facts was not affirmatively established; regular filing of classification lists and RT-12 returns showed the Department had knowledge of the product. The product was also held to be a plant growth regulator, not an insecticide or pesticide, so it did not qualify for exemption under Notification No. 234/82. The residuary classification was upheld, and the duty and penalty confirmation was sustained. en-us Mon, 28 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 09 Aug 2011 12:38:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85961 Extended limitation under excise law could not be invoked because suppression of facts was not affirmatively established; regular filing of classification lists and RT-12 returns showed the Department had knowledge of the product. The product was also held to be a plant growth regulator, not an insecticide or pesticide, so it did not qualify for exemption under Notification No. 234/82. The residuary classification was upheld, and the duty and penalty confirmation was sustained. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 28 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85961