https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109625 Classification declarations disclosed the nature of the product, and the record did not show suppression with intent to evade duty. In view of later Tribunal decisions, mere departmental knowledge was insufficient to justify invocation of the extended period, and the existence of conflicting decisions on manufacture also supported the absence of wilful suppression. The demand was therefore treated as prima facie time-barred, leading to waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty and stay of recovery pending appeal. en-us Mon, 11 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 11 Apr 2012 11:13:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109625 Classification declarations disclosed the nature of the product, and the record did not show suppression with intent to evade duty. In view of later Tribunal decisions, mere departmental knowledge was insufficient to justify invocation of the extended period, and the existence of conflicting decisions on manufacture also supported the absence of wilful suppression. The demand was therefore treated as prima facie time-barred, leading to waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty and stay of recovery pending appeal. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 11 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109625