https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328260 Duty demands beyond the normal limitation period cannot rely on the extended period unless the Revenue proves deliberate suppression of facts or wilful misstatement. Where the classification of tread rubber was debatable, a tariff note supported the assessee's view, and the departmental stand was inconsistent, the legal position was not clear enough to infer suppression from mere non-payment or an incorrect classification view. The extended period was therefore not available, and the demand was treated as time-barred in favour of the assessee. en-us Fri, 13 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 31 May 2016 10:39:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328260 Duty demands beyond the normal limitation period cannot rely on the extended period unless the Revenue proves deliberate suppression of facts or wilful misstatement. Where the classification of tread rubber was debatable, a tariff note supported the assessee's view, and the departmental stand was inconsistent, the legal position was not clear enough to infer suppression from mere non-payment or an incorrect classification view. The extended period was therefore not available, and the demand was treated as time-barred in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 13 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328260