https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109776 A wrong claim of classification, by itself, did not amount to suppression of facts or misstatement for invoking the extended period of limitation where the assessee had disclosed the classification in its declaration under Rule 173B. The Revenue had the opportunity and jurisdiction to object to the declared heading, so the demand based on alleged misclassification could not automatically overcome the limitation objection. On that basis, the appellant was found to have a strong prima facie case on limitation, and unconditional stay was granted. en-us Thu, 19 Dec 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 11 Apr 2012 17:53:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109776 A wrong claim of classification, by itself, did not amount to suppression of facts or misstatement for invoking the extended period of limitation where the assessee had disclosed the classification in its declaration under Rule 173B. The Revenue had the opportunity and jurisdiction to object to the declared heading, so the demand based on alleged misclassification could not automatically overcome the limitation objection. On that basis, the appellant was found to have a strong prima facie case on limitation, and unconditional stay was granted. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 19 Dec 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109776