https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93631 Video projector and projection television sets were treated as video projectors, not broadcast television receiver sets, so the exemption claim failed in line with the Supreme Court's earlier ruling in the assessee's own case. The extended limitation period was held applicable because clearances were made under a misleading description, the classification list was approved on incorrect disclosure, and the notice alleged suppression and wilful misdeclaration to evade duty. On valuation, the assessable value was sent back for limited reconsideration of cum-duty recalculation under the Larger Bench principle, if the factual basis was satisfied. en-us Thu, 08 Jun 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 14 Nov 2011 17:29:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93631 Video projector and projection television sets were treated as video projectors, not broadcast television receiver sets, so the exemption claim failed in line with the Supreme Court's earlier ruling in the assessee's own case. The extended limitation period was held applicable because clearances were made under a misleading description, the classification list was approved on incorrect disclosure, and the notice alleged suppression and wilful misdeclaration to evade duty. On valuation, the assessable value was sent back for limited reconsideration of cum-duty recalculation under the Larger Bench principle, if the factual basis was satisfied. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 08 Jun 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93631