https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112868 CESTAT, Kolkata held that the extended period under the proviso to section 11A was not available because the department failed to show suppression of facts or misstatement with intent to evade duty. The assessee had filed a classification list that was approved by the jurisdictional proper officer, and later testing was undertaken only to secure uniform classification. A disputed classification claim, by itself, did not establish mala fides, especially where the officer could have sought testing or further clarification before approval. The demand was therefore wholly time-barred in favour of the assessee. en-us Tue, 20 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 02 May 2012 12:47:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112868 CESTAT, Kolkata held that the extended period under the proviso to section 11A was not available because the department failed to show suppression of facts or misstatement with intent to evade duty. The assessee had filed a classification list that was approved by the jurisdictional proper officer, and later testing was undertaken only to secure uniform classification. A disputed classification claim, by itself, did not establish mala fides, especially where the officer could have sought testing or further clarification before approval. The demand was therefore wholly time-barred in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 20 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112868