https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328011 Extended limitation for duty recovery depends on whether the assessee's claim under Notification No. 245/83 involved suppression or misdeclaration. One view held that the price lists disclosed the DPCO-linked retail price and the claimed discount, and repeated departmental approval showed no suppression, so the demand was time-barred. The contrary view held that the assessee failed to prove that the prices were actually approved under DPCO, 1987, and that an unsupported exemption claim in the price list amounted to misdeclaration with intent to wrongly avail the benefit, so the extended period applied. The matter was therefore referred for a third Member. en-us Thu, 12 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 16 Mar 2017 16:42:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328011 Extended limitation for duty recovery depends on whether the assessee's claim under Notification No. 245/83 involved suppression or misdeclaration. One view held that the price lists disclosed the DPCO-linked retail price and the claimed discount, and repeated departmental approval showed no suppression, so the demand was time-barred. The contrary view held that the assessee failed to prove that the prices were actually approved under DPCO, 1987, and that an unsupported exemption claim in the price list amounted to misdeclaration with intent to wrongly avail the benefit, so the extended period applied. The matter was therefore referred for a third Member. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 12 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328011