https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116385 The extended limitation period under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was held unavailable because the record did not show wilful suppression, misstatement, or deliberate intent to evade duty. The assessee had disclosed the goods as shells and slides in RT-12 returns and invoices, and those returns were assessed by departmental officers; an incorrect classification claim alone was insufficient to establish the mens rea required for the longer limitation period. On that basis, the Revenue appeal failed on limitation, and the penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was left undisturbed. en-us Fri, 01 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 12 Jun 2012 10:04:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116385 The extended limitation period under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was held unavailable because the record did not show wilful suppression, misstatement, or deliberate intent to evade duty. The assessee had disclosed the goods as shells and slides in RT-12 returns and invoices, and those returns were assessed by departmental officers; an incorrect classification claim alone was insufficient to establish the mens rea required for the longer limitation period. On that basis, the Revenue appeal failed on limitation, and the penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was left undisturbed. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 01 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116385