https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98942 The extended limitation period under the proviso to Rule 57-I could not be invoked where the goods were declared as opaque silicon trays and covers, there was no material showing misdeclaration, and Rule 57G did not require disclosure of the inputs' function; the demand was therefore time-barred. The penalty linked to the alleged wrong credit could not survive once the credit demand failed on limitation. For the separate penalty under Rule 226, the prescribed maximum was Rs. 2,000, so the penalty was reduced to that statutory limit. en-us Thu, 04 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 24 Jan 2012 16:35:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98942 The extended limitation period under the proviso to Rule 57-I could not be invoked where the goods were declared as opaque silicon trays and covers, there was no material showing misdeclaration, and Rule 57G did not require disclosure of the inputs' function; the demand was therefore time-barred. The penalty linked to the alleged wrong credit could not survive once the credit demand failed on limitation. For the separate penalty under Rule 226, the prescribed maximum was Rs. 2,000, so the penalty was reduced to that statutory limit. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 04 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98942