https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336948 Chapter 29 exclusion for Noscapine B.P. and Papavarine S.R. was rejected because the goods did not satisfy the statutory meaning of opium, a derivative of opium, or a narcotic drug under the governing excise law, so classification under sub-heading 2939.1900 was upheld. On limitation, the longer period could not be invoked because the record did not show wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or intent to evade duty, and the revenue was already aware of the classification dispute. The demand and penalty survived only for the normal period, with quantification remitted for fresh determination. en-us Mon, 19 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 30 Jan 2018 15:40:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336948 Chapter 29 exclusion for Noscapine B.P. and Papavarine S.R. was rejected because the goods did not satisfy the statutory meaning of opium, a derivative of opium, or a narcotic drug under the governing excise law, so classification under sub-heading 2939.1900 was upheld. On limitation, the longer period could not be invoked because the record did not show wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or intent to evade duty, and the revenue was already aware of the classification dispute. The demand and penalty survived only for the normal period, with quantification remitted for fresh determination. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 19 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336948