https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112851 The Appellate Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing both appeals solely on the grounds of the time limit for demanding Central Excise duty. The Tribunal emphasized that there was no evidence of wilful misstatement or suppression of facts in the classification of the goods under a particular heading, rejecting the Department's contention of mala fide intention. The classification aspect was not delved into, with the Tribunal focusing on the time-barred nature of the demand, ultimately siding with the appellant based on consistent classification practices and filing of returns indicating the claimed classification. en-us Fri, 26 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 02 May 2012 11:38:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112851 The Appellate Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing both appeals solely on the grounds of the time limit for demanding Central Excise duty. The Tribunal emphasized that there was no evidence of wilful misstatement or suppression of facts in the classification of the goods under a particular heading, rejecting the Department's contention of mala fide intention. The classification aspect was not delved into, with the Tribunal focusing on the time-barred nature of the demand, ultimately siding with the appellant based on consistent classification practices and filing of returns indicating the claimed classification. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 26 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112851