https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357422 In a central excise classification dispute, the extended period of limitation could not be invoked because the assessee had filed classification declarations and ER-1 returns, and the Revenue showed no deliberate suppression or wilful misstatement. Mere disagreement on classification was insufficient to attract penal consequences under Section 11AC. On merits, the Revenue also failed to prove that goods cleared as HRBO flakes were actually stearic acid: the test reports were inconclusive, the technical opinion was limited, and buyer statements could not be relied on without compliance with Section 9D and effective cross-examination. The demand and penalties were therefore unsustainable. en-us Tue, 20 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 06 Nov 2020 11:18:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357422 In a central excise classification dispute, the extended period of limitation could not be invoked because the assessee had filed classification declarations and ER-1 returns, and the Revenue showed no deliberate suppression or wilful misstatement. Mere disagreement on classification was insufficient to attract penal consequences under Section 11AC. On merits, the Revenue also failed to prove that goods cleared as HRBO flakes were actually stearic acid: the test reports were inconclusive, the technical opinion was limited, and buyer statements could not be relied on without compliance with Section 9D and effective cross-examination. The demand and penalties were therefore unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 20 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357422