Extended limitation and period-specific computation reduced duty liability, while post-notice interest and enhanced penalty provisions were held inapplicable.

Extended limitation was upheld because departmental visits to another registered unit did not establish knowledge of clearances from the unregistered unit, and the assessee's claim of bona fide belief was not substantiated. The duty liability was then recomputed on the correct basis, applying the exemption structure and computation method accepted in precedent, which reduced the demand. Interest and the enhanced penalty regime were held inapplicable because those provisions came into force after the period covered by the notice, so the interest demand was set aside and the penalty was reduced under the applicable penal rule.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the demand was barred by limitation and the extended period could be invoked; (ii) whether the duty demand, interest and penalty required modification on the basis of correct duty computation and the applicability of penalty and interest provisions for the relevant period.

Issue (i): Whether the demand was barred by limitation and the extended period could be invoked.

Analysis: The assessee's plea that the department was already aware of the activity in the relevant unit and that the product was not excisable was not accepted. The existence of another registered unit and departmental visits to that unit did not establish awareness of the unregistered unit's clearances. The material also did not substantiate a bona fide belief sufficient to defeat the invocation of the extended period.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was validly invoked and the limitation objection failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the duty demand, interest and penalty required modification on the basis of correct duty computation and the applicability of penalty and interest provisions for the relevant period.

Analysis: The duty was required to be recomputed on a proper basis, including the benefit flowing from the relevant exemption structure and the method of computation accepted in the cited precedent. On the recalculation furnished and accepted, the duty liability stood reduced. Since the statutory provisions for interest and the enhanced penalty regime came into force after the period covered by the notice, those provisions were held inapplicable for that period. A reduced penalty was still sustained under the penal rule applied by the authority.

Conclusion: The duty demand was reduced, the interest demand was set aside, and the penalty was reduced to a lesser amount.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only in part, with the demand and ancillary liabilities modified but the invocation of limitation upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: The extended period can be invoked where departmental visits to another unit do not establish knowledge of clandestine clearances from the relevant unit, and monetary liabilities must be confined to the provisions and computation applicable to the period in dispute.

---