https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97788 Unreported clearance of M.S. scrap justified invocation of the extended period because the scrap was not disclosed in the classification list or otherwise declared for the relevant period, so the duty demand was not time-barred. Section 11AC penalty could not be imposed retrospectively for clearances that ended before that provision came into force, so that penalty was set aside. Penalty under Rule 173Q, however, was supported by the record and was sustained in reduced form. The duty demand therefore stood, while the penalty position was altered only to the extent of removing the Section 11AC levy and reducing the Rule 173Q penalty. en-us Wed, 04 Apr 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Jan 2012 11:02:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97788 Unreported clearance of M.S. scrap justified invocation of the extended period because the scrap was not disclosed in the classification list or otherwise declared for the relevant period, so the duty demand was not time-barred. Section 11AC penalty could not be imposed retrospectively for clearances that ended before that provision came into force, so that penalty was set aside. Penalty under Rule 173Q, however, was supported by the record and was sustained in reduced form. The duty demand therefore stood, while the penalty position was altered only to the extent of removing the Section 11AC levy and reducing the Rule 173Q penalty. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 04 Apr 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97788