https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87779 The extended limitation period could not be invoked on a bare allegation of misstatement that steel tubes were capital goods components under Rule 57Q, because the Department had not undertaken the factual verification needed to support that allegation. The record showed that credit was taken and verified on the same day, and the goods were treated as falling within the machinery entry for distillation under Chapter sub-heading 84.19. In the absence of proper enquiry into the use and character of the steel tubes, mere lack of further evidence from the assessee was insufficient to sustain extended limitation. The show cause notice was time-barred, and the demand and penalty were unsustainable. en-us Fri, 27 Jun 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 10 Sep 2011 12:40:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87779 The extended limitation period could not be invoked on a bare allegation of misstatement that steel tubes were capital goods components under Rule 57Q, because the Department had not undertaken the factual verification needed to support that allegation. The record showed that credit was taken and verified on the same day, and the goods were treated as falling within the machinery entry for distillation under Chapter sub-heading 84.19. In the absence of proper enquiry into the use and character of the steel tubes, mere lack of further evidence from the assessee was insufficient to sustain extended limitation. The show cause notice was time-barred, and the demand and penalty were unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 27 Jun 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87779