https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91564 Extended limitation under the proviso to Section 11A with Rule 57-I could not be invoked for recovery of Modvat credit taken in 1986-87 because the notice failed to set out the factual basis for suppression or misstatement. The records indicated that the goods were cleared for use in the Kandla Free Trade Zone, and the accompanying documents showed the intended destination and use. No statement at or before clearance showed that the removals were made for export. A later argument based on Rule 57F(3)(iii) did not transform the original clearances into suppression, and any alleged misstatement arising only after clearance and notice could not sustain the extended period. en-us Wed, 11 Jun 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 19 Oct 2011 12:30:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91564 Extended limitation under the proviso to Section 11A with Rule 57-I could not be invoked for recovery of Modvat credit taken in 1986-87 because the notice failed to set out the factual basis for suppression or misstatement. The records indicated that the goods were cleared for use in the Kandla Free Trade Zone, and the accompanying documents showed the intended destination and use. No statement at or before clearance showed that the removals were made for export. A later argument based on Rule 57F(3)(iii) did not transform the original clearances into suppression, and any alleged misstatement arising only after clearance and notice could not sustain the extended period. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 11 Jun 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91564