https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98048 The majority held that the extended period of limitation could not be invoked where the assessee had filed a classification list claiming exemption, the list had been approved, and daily production reports were submitted. In the absence of clandestine removal, suppression of facts, or wilful misstatement, the demand for an earlier period was treated as time-barred and the merits were not examined. The dissenting view considered the marking of packs as control samples insufficient, found the packing not shown to differ from trade packing, and concluded that material facts were not fully disclosed, so the demand was not time-barred. en-us Tue, 25 May 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 19 Jan 2012 10:30:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98048 The majority held that the extended period of limitation could not be invoked where the assessee had filed a classification list claiming exemption, the list had been approved, and daily production reports were submitted. In the absence of clandestine removal, suppression of facts, or wilful misstatement, the demand for an earlier period was treated as time-barred and the merits were not examined. The dissenting view considered the marking of packs as control samples insufficient, found the packing not shown to differ from trade packing, and concluded that material facts were not fully disclosed, so the demand was not time-barred. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 25 May 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98048