https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94211 Approved classification lists using generic descriptions, left undisturbed over time, do not by themselves justify invoking the extended period for differential excise duty. The Department was expected to make proper enquiry at the approval stage and, where necessary, use provisional assessment; once it had accepted the descriptions for years, deliberate misdeclaration could not be inferred merely because the goods might fall under different headings. In the absence of specific evidence of intent to evade duty or deliberate suppression, the demand based on extended limitation failed and the proposed differential duty and penalty could not be sustained. en-us Mon, 19 Apr 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 19 Nov 2011 18:05:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94211 Approved classification lists using generic descriptions, left undisturbed over time, do not by themselves justify invoking the extended period for differential excise duty. The Department was expected to make proper enquiry at the approval stage and, where necessary, use provisional assessment; once it had accepted the descriptions for years, deliberate misdeclaration could not be inferred merely because the goods might fall under different headings. In the absence of specific evidence of intent to evade duty or deliberate suppression, the demand based on extended limitation failed and the proposed differential duty and penalty could not be sustained. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 19 Apr 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94211