https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89134 The extended period of limitation was not available where the imported bare films were disclosed in RT-12 returns and Bills of Entry regularly filed with the Department, putting the Department on notice of the classification position. Suppression could not be inferred merely from the classification lists describing metallised films as produced from goods under sub-headings 3901 to 3915, especially when a later CBEC clarification showed the classification issue was debatable. The appellants' understanding therefore had a defensible basis, and no suppression or misstatement with intent to evade duty was established. en-us Tue, 28 Jul 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 23 Sep 2011 16:24:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89134 The extended period of limitation was not available where the imported bare films were disclosed in RT-12 returns and Bills of Entry regularly filed with the Department, putting the Department on notice of the classification position. Suppression could not be inferred merely from the classification lists describing metallised films as produced from goods under sub-headings 3901 to 3915, especially when a later CBEC clarification showed the classification issue was debatable. The appellants' understanding therefore had a defensible basis, and no suppression or misstatement with intent to evade duty was established. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 28 Jul 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89134