https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85168 The Collector found that both appellants wrongly availed benefits under Notifications 85-C.E. and 175/86-C.E. due to mutual interest. Duty was demanded from M/s. Gufic Pharma (P) Ltd, penalties imposed, and assets confiscated. The extended period under Section 11A was invoked for alleged fraud and suppression of facts. The Tribunal overturned the decision, noting a distinction between ownership and mutual interest. Failure to disclose financing details does not warrant the extended period if not legally required, leading to the demand for duty and penalty being set aside. en-us Tue, 04 Jul 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 03 Aug 2011 11:17:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85168 The Collector found that both appellants wrongly availed benefits under Notifications 85-C.E. and 175/86-C.E. due to mutual interest. Duty was demanded from M/s. Gufic Pharma (P) Ltd, penalties imposed, and assets confiscated. The extended period under Section 11A was invoked for alleged fraud and suppression of facts. The Tribunal overturned the decision, noting a distinction between ownership and mutual interest. Failure to disclose financing details does not warrant the extended period if not legally required, leading to the demand for duty and penalty being set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 04 Jul 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85168