https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50318 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants in a dispute over the classification of Poly-Coated Printed Paper, holding that it should be classified under Sub-Heading No. 4811.30 instead of 5811.90. The Tribunal found that the longer period of limitation for duty demand was not justified as there was no evidence of wilful misstatement or suppression of facts by the appellants. The Tribunal emphasized that the Revenue's case was based on a changed opinion rather than intentional evasion of duty payment, ultimately setting aside the demand as barred by limitation under Section 11A proviso. en-us Fri, 11 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 21 Aug 2010 11:02:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50318 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants in a dispute over the classification of Poly-Coated Printed Paper, holding that it should be classified under Sub-Heading No. 4811.30 instead of 5811.90. The Tribunal found that the longer period of limitation for duty demand was not justified as there was no evidence of wilful misstatement or suppression of facts by the appellants. The Tribunal emphasized that the Revenue's case was based on a changed opinion rather than intentional evasion of duty payment, ultimately setting aside the demand as barred by limitation under Section 11A proviso. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 11 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50318