https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267506 Classification of the goods under Chapter Heading 27.01, with classification lists already approved under Rule 173B of the Central Excise Rules, did not by itself establish wilful misstatement or suppression of facts. Because the department had no contemporaneous doubt, did not call for sample testing during the relevant period, and relied only on later records to allege suppression, the extended period under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was not available. The demand was therefore time-barred and the extended limitation was held unsustainable in favour of the assessee. en-us Wed, 21 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 07 Nov 2015 10:12:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267506 Classification of the goods under Chapter Heading 27.01, with classification lists already approved under Rule 173B of the Central Excise Rules, did not by itself establish wilful misstatement or suppression of facts. Because the department had no contemporaneous doubt, did not call for sample testing during the relevant period, and relied only on later records to allege suppression, the extended period under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was not available. The demand was therefore time-barred and the extended limitation was held unsustainable in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 21 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267506