https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87130 A product declared from the outset in classification lists as a textile auxiliary under Tariff Item 68, and repeatedly checked, verified and approved by departmental officers, was treated as sufficiently disclosed. On those facts, no misstatement or suppression of facts could be attributed to justify the extended limitation period. Once the Department had accepted the declared classification and later changed its view, past demands could not be raised under the extended period. The demand was therefore time barred and the limitation defence succeeded in favour of the assessee. en-us Mon, 06 Oct 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 02 Sep 2011 18:48:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87130 A product declared from the outset in classification lists as a textile auxiliary under Tariff Item 68, and repeatedly checked, verified and approved by departmental officers, was treated as sufficiently disclosed. On those facts, no misstatement or suppression of facts could be attributed to justify the extended limitation period. Once the Department had accepted the declared classification and later changed its view, past demands could not be raised under the extended period. The demand was therefore time barred and the limitation defence succeeded in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 06 Oct 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87130