https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108790 An approved classification list could not be reopened retrospectively in the absence of proof of suppression, concealment, or a changed factual basis. The demand for differential duty was therefore held time-barred, as the extended period under the proviso to section 11A was not available when the show cause notice was issued beyond the normal limitation period. Penalties under rule 173Q and rule 9(2) also failed because no clandestine removal or procedural contravention was established, and the penalty foundation disappeared once the duty demand was defeated on limitation. The duty demand and penalties were set aside, with consequential relief. en-us Fri, 27 Dec 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 03 Apr 2012 18:33:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108790 An approved classification list could not be reopened retrospectively in the absence of proof of suppression, concealment, or a changed factual basis. The demand for differential duty was therefore held time-barred, as the extended period under the proviso to section 11A was not available when the show cause notice was issued beyond the normal limitation period. Penalties under rule 173Q and rule 9(2) also failed because no clandestine removal or procedural contravention was established, and the penalty foundation disappeared once the duty demand was defeated on limitation. The duty demand and penalties were set aside, with consequential relief. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 27 Dec 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108790