https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87784 The extended limitation period under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act could not be invoked because the notice did not plead suppression, wilful misstatement, fraud, or any equivalent ground, and the record already disclosed the relevant facts; the penalty therefore lacked a legal foundation. Modvat credit also could not be denied on gypsum lost as invisible or technologically unavoidable process loss during cement manufacture, because Rule 57D protects credit where input is consumed in waste, refuse, or by-product arising in the manufacturing process. The commentary states that the demand for the extended period was time-barred, the penalty was unsustainable, and credit could not be denied on that basis. en-us Thu, 10 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 10 Sep 2011 12:59:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87784 The extended limitation period under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act could not be invoked because the notice did not plead suppression, wilful misstatement, fraud, or any equivalent ground, and the record already disclosed the relevant facts; the penalty therefore lacked a legal foundation. Modvat credit also could not be denied on gypsum lost as invisible or technologically unavoidable process loss during cement manufacture, because Rule 57D protects credit where input is consumed in waste, refuse, or by-product arising in the manufacturing process. The commentary states that the demand for the extended period was time-barred, the penalty was unsustainable, and credit could not be denied on that basis. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 10 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87784