https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95864 Mere non-mention of unbranded tobacco in the classification list did not, on these facts, establish suppression or wilful misstatement for extended limitation under central excise law, because departmental officers had been in physical control of the unit for years and were aware of the manufacturing activity. The demand was also treated as revenue-neutral, since duty credit would otherwise have been available, and in such a situation an intent to evade duty is not readily inferred. The extended period of limitation was therefore unavailable and the demand was time-barred. en-us Fri, 29 Sep 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 15 Dec 2011 15:12:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95864 Mere non-mention of unbranded tobacco in the classification list did not, on these facts, establish suppression or wilful misstatement for extended limitation under central excise law, because departmental officers had been in physical control of the unit for years and were aware of the manufacturing activity. The demand was also treated as revenue-neutral, since duty credit would otherwise have been available, and in such a situation an intent to evade duty is not readily inferred. The extended period of limitation was therefore unavailable and the demand was time-barred. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 29 Sep 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95864