https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50374 The Tribunal held that the polished tiles manufactured by the appellant were not classified as glazed tiles. It was determined that glazing should be an external process applied after the ceramic body is formed. The Tribunal also found that the extended period under Section 11A was not applicable due to the absence of suppression of facts or willful misstatement by the appellant. As a result, the demand for the payment of differential duty and the penalties imposed were overturned, and the appeal was successful. en-us Tue, 12 Sep 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 21 Aug 2010 13:11:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50374 The Tribunal held that the polished tiles manufactured by the appellant were not classified as glazed tiles. It was determined that glazing should be an external process applied after the ceramic body is formed. The Tribunal also found that the extended period under Section 11A was not applicable due to the absence of suppression of facts or willful misstatement by the appellant. As a result, the demand for the payment of differential duty and the penalties imposed were overturned, and the appeal was successful. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 12 Sep 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50374