https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108714 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the duty demand for the period 1-4-87 to 29-2-88, as the Commissioner's ruling in a prior case indicated no suppression of facts. The introduction of a new tariff was deemed relevant for classification, not for proving suppression. The extended period under Section 11A was held inapplicable, leading to the decision in favor of the appellants engaged in manufacturing "Forged Steel Grinding Media Ball." en-us Fri, 22 Feb 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 03 Apr 2012 15:14:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108714 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the duty demand for the period 1-4-87 to 29-2-88, as the Commissioner's ruling in a prior case indicated no suppression of facts. The introduction of a new tariff was deemed relevant for classification, not for proving suppression. The extended period under Section 11A was held inapplicable, leading to the decision in favor of the appellants engaged in manufacturing "Forged Steel Grinding Media Ball." Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 22 Feb 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108714