https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152612 Disclosure of the product description and the classification claimed by the appellant from the stage of registration meant the Department was prima facie aware of the classification stand, so suppression was not established for invoking the extended period of limitation. As the balance demand related to a period beyond one year from the show cause notice, that limitation objection was treated as a substantial ground against immediate recovery. The classification dispute under Heading 8433.00 therefore supported waiver of the remaining pre-deposit and stay of recovery pending disposal of the appeal. en-us Mon, 01 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 08 Jul 2013 11:06:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152612 Disclosure of the product description and the classification claimed by the appellant from the stage of registration meant the Department was prima facie aware of the classification stand, so suppression was not established for invoking the extended period of limitation. As the balance demand related to a period beyond one year from the show cause notice, that limitation objection was treated as a substantial ground against immediate recovery. The classification dispute under Heading 8433.00 therefore supported waiver of the remaining pre-deposit and stay of recovery pending disposal of the appeal. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 01 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152612