https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81448 Non-disclosure in a regulatory setting with State Excise control, departmental postings, and prior inspections was treated as consistent with bona fide belief rather than deliberate suppression, so the extended limitation period was not available and the demand remained confined to the normal period with reduced penalty. For valuation of acetaldehyde, captive-consumption exemption under Notification No. 118/75 was unavailable because the goods were cleared to distilleries, not used within the same factory. Rule 6(b)(i) applied on comparable-goods valuation, with adjustment for differences such as purity, and Rule 6(b)(ii) based on cost data was inapplicable. en-us Thu, 19 Sep 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 24 Jun 2011 16:43:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81448 Non-disclosure in a regulatory setting with State Excise control, departmental postings, and prior inspections was treated as consistent with bona fide belief rather than deliberate suppression, so the extended limitation period was not available and the demand remained confined to the normal period with reduced penalty. For valuation of acetaldehyde, captive-consumption exemption under Notification No. 118/75 was unavailable because the goods were cleared to distilleries, not used within the same factory. Rule 6(b)(i) applied on comparable-goods valuation, with adjustment for differences such as purity, and Rule 6(b)(ii) based on cost data was inapplicable. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 19 Sep 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81448