https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88883 The extended period of limitation under Section 11A was unavailable where the assessee had disclosed the goods as rejected consignments received for reconditioning and acted on the then prevailing view that remaking returned excisable goods into the same kind of goods did not amount to manufacture under Rule 173H. On those facts, the conduct could not be treated as suppression of facts or deliberate misdeclaration to evade duty, so the demand was barred by limitation. The duty demand and penalty therefore could not be sustained, and the impugned order was set aside. en-us Thu, 11 Jun 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 22 Sep 2011 10:34:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88883 The extended period of limitation under Section 11A was unavailable where the assessee had disclosed the goods as rejected consignments received for reconditioning and acted on the then prevailing view that remaking returned excisable goods into the same kind of goods did not amount to manufacture under Rule 173H. On those facts, the conduct could not be treated as suppression of facts or deliberate misdeclaration to evade duty, so the demand was barred by limitation. The duty demand and penalty therefore could not be sustained, and the impugned order was set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 11 Jun 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88883