https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126508 Classification declarations placed the products under Chapter 30, and the department did not object at the relevant time. On that record, there was no suppression of facts or mala fide intent to evade duty, so the extended period of limitation could not be invoked; the demand was confined to the normal period only. Penalty under Section 11AC also failed because culpable conduct was not established, and the same absence of suppression or intent likewise meant penalty under Rule 25 could not stand. The demand was left for recomputation within the normal limitation period, and the penalties were deleted. en-us Tue, 30 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 04 Jul 2017 12:14:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126508 Classification declarations placed the products under Chapter 30, and the department did not object at the relevant time. On that record, there was no suppression of facts or mala fide intent to evade duty, so the extended period of limitation could not be invoked; the demand was confined to the normal period only. Penalty under Section 11AC also failed because culpable conduct was not established, and the same absence of suppression or intent likewise meant penalty under Rule 25 could not stand. The demand was left for recomputation within the normal limitation period, and the penalties were deleted. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 30 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126508