https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32488 The court affirmed the Central Excise Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal's decision that the extended period under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act could not be invoked due to the manufacturer providing complete details and an approved list. The correct classification of the product in dispute was determined as heading 35.07, rejecting the manufacturer's initial classification. The court clarified that the amended provisions of Section 11A, including a one-year recovery limitation, applied retrospectively from the date of introduction, and the five-year limitation required evidence of fraud or wilful misstatement, absent in this case. en-us Wed, 03 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 01 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32488 The court affirmed the Central Excise Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal's decision that the extended period under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act could not be invoked due to the manufacturer providing complete details and an approved list. The correct classification of the product in dispute was determined as heading 35.07, rejecting the manufacturer's initial classification. The court clarified that the amended provisions of Section 11A, including a one-year recovery limitation, applied retrospectively from the date of introduction, and the five-year limitation required evidence of fraud or wilful misstatement, absent in this case. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 03 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32488