https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114532 The extended period under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act could not be invoked because wilful misdeclaration and suppression were not established. The product had been consistently disclosed as the disputed soap, relevant classification lists and price declarations were filed and approved, and the department had accepted the classification for a long period. A mere classification dispute, where the product description was disclosed, did not amount to suppression or wilful misstatement with intent to evade duty. The demand for the period October 1995 to March 1997 was therefore time-barred. en-us Fri, 08 Oct 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 16 May 2012 14:33:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114532 The extended period under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act could not be invoked because wilful misdeclaration and suppression were not established. The product had been consistently disclosed as the disputed soap, relevant classification lists and price declarations were filed and approved, and the department had accepted the classification for a long period. A mere classification dispute, where the product description was disclosed, did not amount to suppression or wilful misstatement with intent to evade duty. The demand for the period October 1995 to March 1997 was therefore time-barred. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 08 Oct 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114532