https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115163 Where an assessee disclosed its classification claim in classification lists and the Department approved them, suppression of facts or wilful misstatement cannot ordinarily be attributed, so recovery of differential central excise duty is confined to the normal limitation period under Rule 10. The note also applies the Cotspun principle that duty based on an approved classification list is not a short-levy unless the approval is first challenged by notice. It further states that retrospective validation under Section 110 of the Finance Act, 2000 did not extend recovery beyond the normal period on these facts. en-us Fri, 24 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 24 May 2012 13:23:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115163 Where an assessee disclosed its classification claim in classification lists and the Department approved them, suppression of facts or wilful misstatement cannot ordinarily be attributed, so recovery of differential central excise duty is confined to the normal limitation period under Rule 10. The note also applies the Cotspun principle that duty based on an approved classification list is not a short-levy unless the approval is first challenged by notice. It further states that retrospective validation under Section 110 of the Finance Act, 2000 did not extend recovery beyond the normal period on these facts. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 24 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115163