https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81804 Set-off credit under Notification No. 225/86-C.E. could not be denied where the input was undisputedly used in manufacture of the final product and the department had full knowledge, physical control, and approval of the working procedure. A separate set-off register mentioned only in a trade notice, lacking statutory force and not communicated as a mandatory notification condition, could not override substantive eligibility; duty, confiscation, and penalty were therefore unsustainable on that basis. The demand was also time-barred because the record showed no wilful suppression, fraud, or calculated misstatement, so the extended limitation period was unavailable. en-us Mon, 06 Jan 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 28 Jun 2011 18:54:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81804 Set-off credit under Notification No. 225/86-C.E. could not be denied where the input was undisputedly used in manufacture of the final product and the department had full knowledge, physical control, and approval of the working procedure. A separate set-off register mentioned only in a trade notice, lacking statutory force and not communicated as a mandatory notification condition, could not override substantive eligibility; duty, confiscation, and penalty were therefore unsustainable on that basis. The demand was also time-barred because the record showed no wilful suppression, fraud, or calculated misstatement, so the extended limitation period was unavailable. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 06 Jan 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81804