https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74584 Reopening of an earlier exemption grant was treated as valid where the department proceeded on fresh material from the assessee's own returns and invoices, so the matter was not viewed as an impermissible collateral review. Rule 10 was held available to the Collector, but the demand failed on limitation because suppression or wilful misstatement was not shown, making the extended period inapplicable. For aggregate clearances under Notification No. 176/77-C.E., trade discounts and the value of bought-back or customer-rejected goods were directed to be excluded on Section 4 valuation principles, requiring recomputation. Seizure and confiscation were set aside for want of proof of manufacture timing, and penalty was left to follow the remand outcome. en-us Wed, 29 Mar 1989 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 09 Jun 2011 17:12:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74584 Reopening of an earlier exemption grant was treated as valid where the department proceeded on fresh material from the assessee's own returns and invoices, so the matter was not viewed as an impermissible collateral review. Rule 10 was held available to the Collector, but the demand failed on limitation because suppression or wilful misstatement was not shown, making the extended period inapplicable. For aggregate clearances under Notification No. 176/77-C.E., trade discounts and the value of bought-back or customer-rejected goods were directed to be excluded on Section 4 valuation principles, requiring recomputation. Seizure and confiscation were set aside for want of proof of manufacture timing, and penalty was left to follow the remand outcome. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 29 Mar 1989 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74584