https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167063 In the absence of proved suppression of facts or wilful misstatement, the extended limitation period could not be invoked, so the demand was confined to six months. The Tribunal also held that fitting a gear mechanism to a motor did not alter its essential character, and a motor with gears remained classifiable under the tariff entry for electric motors of all sorts. The result was that the time-bar objection succeeded, while the classification under Item 30-CET was sustained, leaving the dispute partly in favour of each side. en-us Fri, 22 Jun 1984 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 05 Dec 2014 10:25:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167063 In the absence of proved suppression of facts or wilful misstatement, the extended limitation period could not be invoked, so the demand was confined to six months. The Tribunal also held that fitting a gear mechanism to a motor did not alter its essential character, and a motor with gears remained classifiable under the tariff entry for electric motors of all sorts. The result was that the time-bar objection succeeded, while the classification under Item 30-CET was sustained, leaving the dispute partly in favour of each side. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 22 Jun 1984 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167063