https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757438 CESTAT New Delhi held that extended period of limitation under section 11A(1) of Central Excise Act could not be invoked against appellant. The Commissioner failed to establish suppression of facts with intent to evade duty regarding classification of RAB as concentrated sugar syrup under ETI 1702 90 90. The tribunal noted that complex classification issues and genuine difference of opinion between department and assessee do not constitute wilful suppression. Commissioner's order dated 09.05.2019 was set aside as entire demand was time-barred under normal limitation period. Appeal allowed. en-us Tue, 20 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 23 Aug 2024 11:57:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757438 CESTAT New Delhi held that extended period of limitation under section 11A(1) of Central Excise Act could not be invoked against appellant. The Commissioner failed to establish suppression of facts with intent to evade duty regarding classification of RAB as concentrated sugar syrup under ETI 1702 90 90. The tribunal noted that complex classification issues and genuine difference of opinion between department and assessee do not constitute wilful suppression. Commissioner's order dated 09.05.2019 was set aside as entire demand was time-barred under normal limitation period. Appeal allowed. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 20 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757438