https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100924 Where the department had itself earlier classified the goods under a particular heading and the assessee paid the differential duty accordingly, a later allegation of suppression or deliberate misdeclaration could not sustain invocation of the extended period. The Tribunal treated the prior departmental classification and compliance as fatal to the demand based on limitation. In the absence of deliberate misdeclaration, the connected penalty and interest were also held unsustainable. The impugned order was set aside and consequential relief followed in favour of the assessee. en-us Mon, 26 Nov 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 07 Feb 2012 18:11:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100924 Where the department had itself earlier classified the goods under a particular heading and the assessee paid the differential duty accordingly, a later allegation of suppression or deliberate misdeclaration could not sustain invocation of the extended period. The Tribunal treated the prior departmental classification and compliance as fatal to the demand based on limitation. In the absence of deliberate misdeclaration, the connected penalty and interest were also held unsustainable. The impugned order was set aside and consequential relief followed in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 26 Nov 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100924