https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91015 Duty demand based on suppression of facts and the extended period of limitation was not sustainable where the product description had been disclosed in the assessee's balance sheets over a long period and the department had already scrutinised the same goods in earlier classification disputes and show cause notices. In that factual setting, there was no material basis to infer misdeclaration or concealment with intent to evade duty, because the department was already aware of the product identity. The invocation of suppression and the extended limitation period was rejected, and the duty demand was set aside. en-us Thu, 20 May 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 13 Oct 2011 12:23:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91015 Duty demand based on suppression of facts and the extended period of limitation was not sustainable where the product description had been disclosed in the assessee's balance sheets over a long period and the department had already scrutinised the same goods in earlier classification disputes and show cause notices. In that factual setting, there was no material basis to infer misdeclaration or concealment with intent to evade duty, because the department was already aware of the product identity. The invocation of suppression and the extended limitation period was rejected, and the duty demand was set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 20 May 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91015