https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109822 A duty demand raised beyond the normal six-month limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act was not sustained because the assessee had filed classification lists that were approved by the proper officer. Suppression of facts with intent to evade duty was not established, and there was no misdescription of the product or disclosed statutory duty to declare raw materials or component parts at that stage. Section 110 of the Finance Act, 2000 was held not to revive or extend limitation on these facts, so the demand remained time-barred. en-us Mon, 24 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 12 Apr 2012 11:33:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109822 A duty demand raised beyond the normal six-month limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act was not sustained because the assessee had filed classification lists that were approved by the proper officer. Suppression of facts with intent to evade duty was not established, and there was no misdescription of the product or disclosed statutory duty to declare raw materials or component parts at that stage. Section 110 of the Finance Act, 2000 was held not to revive or extend limitation on these facts, so the demand remained time-barred. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 24 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109822