https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97982 Misdescription of an activity and suppression of the true factual position material to duty liability can justify invocation of the extended limitation period, even where a classification list was approved and returns were filed, because such procedural compliance does not cure non-disclosure. The assessee's representation that the activity amounted to manufacture was found inconsistent with the actual testing of only part of the goods, so the longer limitation period was upheld. Penalty and interest could not be sustained under the later rules for the relevant prior period because those provisions were not retrospective; however, penalty remained maintainable under the general penal provision, albeit in reduced form, and the interest demand was set aside. en-us Mon, 30 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Jan 2012 17:14:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97982 Misdescription of an activity and suppression of the true factual position material to duty liability can justify invocation of the extended limitation period, even where a classification list was approved and returns were filed, because such procedural compliance does not cure non-disclosure. The assessee's representation that the activity amounted to manufacture was found inconsistent with the actual testing of only part of the goods, so the longer limitation period was upheld. Penalty and interest could not be sustained under the later rules for the relevant prior period because those provisions were not retrospective; however, penalty remained maintainable under the general penal provision, albeit in reduced form, and the interest demand was set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 30 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97982