https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347465 A classification dispute that had already been litigated before different forums was treated as interpretational, not as evidence of suppression or intent to evade duty. The assessee had disclosed the relevant duty details in its returns and paid the differential duty immediately when pointed out, so the extended limitation period was not available. On those facts, the demand was barred by limitation and was set aside, and the Revenue's appeal failed. en-us Wed, 30 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 05 Sep 2017 08:20:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347465 A classification dispute that had already been litigated before different forums was treated as interpretational, not as evidence of suppression or intent to evade duty. The assessee had disclosed the relevant duty details in its returns and paid the differential duty immediately when pointed out, so the extended limitation period was not available. On those facts, the demand was barred by limitation and was set aside, and the Revenue's appeal failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 30 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347465