https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202376 The court dismissed the Revenue's appeal challenging the respondent's duty exemption claim under Notification No. 4/97-C.E. The dispute arose over the classification of Synthetic Rutile as Titanium ores and concentrates, impacting duty liability. The court emphasized expert opinion and clarified that the extended limitation period applies to willful suppression, not mere misinterpretation. The respondent's actions did not constitute deliberate concealment, leading to the rejection of the Revenue's appeal. en-us Wed, 28 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 01 Feb 2011 12:07:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202376 The court dismissed the Revenue's appeal challenging the respondent's duty exemption claim under Notification No. 4/97-C.E. The dispute arose over the classification of Synthetic Rutile as Titanium ores and concentrates, impacting duty liability. The court emphasized expert opinion and clarified that the extended limitation period applies to willful suppression, not mere misinterpretation. The respondent's actions did not constitute deliberate concealment, leading to the rejection of the Revenue's appeal. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 28 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202376