https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93726 CEGAT, Mumbai held that a duty demand based on alleged yarn shortage could not stand where the department failed to produce positive evidence of clandestine manufacture or removal, and the shortage was plausibly explained by moisture variation and prior stock adjustments. The extended period of limitation was also unavailable because the notice did not establish suppression, fraud, or wilful misstatement, particularly when earlier departmental proceedings had already disclosed the relevant stock and moisture-loss explanation. On both merits and limitation, the demand and penalty were set aside. en-us Fri, 30 Jun 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 16 Nov 2011 14:54:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93726 CEGAT, Mumbai held that a duty demand based on alleged yarn shortage could not stand where the department failed to produce positive evidence of clandestine manufacture or removal, and the shortage was plausibly explained by moisture variation and prior stock adjustments. The extended period of limitation was also unavailable because the notice did not establish suppression, fraud, or wilful misstatement, particularly when earlier departmental proceedings had already disclosed the relevant stock and moisture-loss explanation. On both merits and limitation, the demand and penalty were set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 30 Jun 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93726