https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91105 An assessee claiming exemption under Notifications 152/77-C.E. and 157/77-C.E. was found to be clearing goods at the effective duty rate of Rs. 200 per metric tonne, and the record indicated that one notification operated unconditionally while the other also covered the goods. On that basis, the denial of exemption under Notification 54/80-C.E. and the resulting demand were not sustainable because no short levy remained. The extended limitation period under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 also could not be invoked, as the show cause notice did not allege suppression with intent to evade duty, the classification lists had been approved, and the circumstances showed a bona fide belief on eligibility. en-us Tue, 28 Oct 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 13 Oct 2011 17:43:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91105 An assessee claiming exemption under Notifications 152/77-C.E. and 157/77-C.E. was found to be clearing goods at the effective duty rate of Rs. 200 per metric tonne, and the record indicated that one notification operated unconditionally while the other also covered the goods. On that basis, the denial of exemption under Notification 54/80-C.E. and the resulting demand were not sustainable because no short levy remained. The extended limitation period under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 also could not be invoked, as the show cause notice did not allege suppression with intent to evade duty, the classification lists had been approved, and the circumstances showed a bona fide belief on eligibility. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 28 Oct 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91105