https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100171 A mismatch between the classification list, which declared the goods at the full duty rate, and the actual concessional clearances amounted to misstatement for duty purposes, so the extended period of limitation was rightly invoked against the assessee. Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could not apply to the relevant period because the differential duty related to a time before its introduction, but the penalty was not wholly unsustainable since Rule 173Q was also invoked in the show cause notice. The penalty was therefore reduced and sustained only to the extent supported by the applicable penal rule. en-us Mon, 02 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 31 Jan 2012 14:47:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100171 A mismatch between the classification list, which declared the goods at the full duty rate, and the actual concessional clearances amounted to misstatement for duty purposes, so the extended period of limitation was rightly invoked against the assessee. Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could not apply to the relevant period because the differential duty related to a time before its introduction, but the penalty was not wholly unsustainable since Rule 173Q was also invoked in the show cause notice. The penalty was therefore reduced and sustained only to the extent supported by the applicable penal rule. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 02 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100171