https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89533 Extended limitation under Section 11A was upheld for the period prior to 10-7-1987 because earlier departmental inspection did not, by itself, prove full disclosure of material facts. Notification No. 182/87-C.E. was applied in the assessee's favour for goods manufactured from 10-7-1987 to 26-7-1988, so the duty demand for that period failed. Trusses, columns and wireless/lighting towers were held not dutiable because they did not come into existence as excisable goods until embedded in earth. The plea that the water tank was not dutiable was rejected as a late factual claim unsupported by evidence, so duty on that item remained. Penalty was left undisturbed. en-us Wed, 04 Feb 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 27 Sep 2011 17:31:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89533 Extended limitation under Section 11A was upheld for the period prior to 10-7-1987 because earlier departmental inspection did not, by itself, prove full disclosure of material facts. Notification No. 182/87-C.E. was applied in the assessee's favour for goods manufactured from 10-7-1987 to 26-7-1988, so the duty demand for that period failed. Trusses, columns and wireless/lighting towers were held not dutiable because they did not come into existence as excisable goods until embedded in earth. The plea that the water tank was not dutiable was rejected as a late factual claim unsupported by evidence, so duty on that item remained. Penalty was left undisturbed. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 04 Feb 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89533