https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468279 In an excise classification dispute concerning polypropylene bags, the tribunal noted that the assessee had purchased polypropylene granules, cleared bags against orders for polypropylene bags, and consistently filed ER-1 returns. As Revenue produced no evidence, including any test report, to show that the goods were not polypropylene bags or that Heading 39232100 was , the declared classification was accepted. On limitation, the tribunal held that regular disclosure in returns and availability of the issue from departmental records defeated any allegation of suppression, fraud, or intent to evade duty; audit detection alone was insufficient. The duty demand and penalty therefore did not survive. en-us Thu, 18 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 03 Jun 2026 11:26:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468279 In an excise classification dispute concerning polypropylene bags, the tribunal noted that the assessee had purchased polypropylene granules, cleared bags against orders for polypropylene bags, and consistently filed ER-1 returns. As Revenue produced no evidence, including any test report, to show that the goods were not polypropylene bags or that Heading 39232100 was , the declared classification was accepted. On limitation, the tribunal held that regular disclosure in returns and availability of the issue from departmental records defeated any allegation of suppression, fraud, or intent to evade duty; audit detection alone was insufficient. The duty demand and penalty therefore did not survive. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 18 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468279