https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80674 Extended limitation under central excise law requires proved deliberate suppression of facts or misstatement with intent to evade duty; on the record, the show cause notices disclosed only procedural contraventions and did not establish conscious concealment, while the appellants' bona fide belief that the product was exempt was not disproved. The demand was therefore confined to the normal limitation period. Penalty likewise depended on deliberate evasion or quasi-criminal conduct, and the absence of proof that the appellants knowingly cleared goods without licence or duty payment meant the penalty foundation failed. No penalty was therefore leviable. en-us Fri, 15 Jun 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 18 Jun 2011 13:35:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80674 Extended limitation under central excise law requires proved deliberate suppression of facts or misstatement with intent to evade duty; on the record, the show cause notices disclosed only procedural contraventions and did not establish conscious concealment, while the appellants' bona fide belief that the product was exempt was not disproved. The demand was therefore confined to the normal limitation period. Penalty likewise depended on deliberate evasion or quasi-criminal conduct, and the absence of proof that the appellants knowingly cleared goods without licence or duty payment meant the penalty foundation failed. No penalty was therefore leviable. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 15 Jun 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80674