https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82416 Differential excise duty could not rest solely on private monthly reports when contemporaneous departmental test memos, official test results and other records supported the declared counts. The demand was therefore set aside. A further demand for invisible loss also failed because the department had accepted the assessee's accounting stage in earlier practice and the trade notice supported that method; with no suppression proved, the extended limitation period could not be invoked, making the claim time-barred. As the underlying demand failed, the associated penalty also could not survive and was set aside, with consequential relief granted to the assessee. en-us Thu, 08 Apr 1993 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 04 Jul 2011 18:55:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82416 Differential excise duty could not rest solely on private monthly reports when contemporaneous departmental test memos, official test results and other records supported the declared counts. The demand was therefore set aside. A further demand for invisible loss also failed because the department had accepted the assessee's accounting stage in earlier practice and the trade notice supported that method; with no suppression proved, the extended limitation period could not be invoked, making the claim time-barred. As the underlying demand failed, the associated penalty also could not survive and was set aside, with consequential relief granted to the assessee. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 08 Apr 1993 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82416