https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99857 Waste and scrap cleared to job workers under Rule 57F(2) with departmental permission could not attract duty where the larger bench view treated such removal as an available option and the scrap was described as non-excisable; the duty demand on those clearances was therefore not sustainable. The demand also failed on limitation because the show cause notice alleged neither suppression nor misstatement with intent to evade duty and did not invoke the extended period under Section 11A, so the extended limitation period could not be applied. The personal penalty consequently did not survive. en-us Wed, 04 Oct 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 30 Jan 2012 13:28:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99857 Waste and scrap cleared to job workers under Rule 57F(2) with departmental permission could not attract duty where the larger bench view treated such removal as an available option and the scrap was described as non-excisable; the duty demand on those clearances was therefore not sustainable. The demand also failed on limitation because the show cause notice alleged neither suppression nor misstatement with intent to evade duty and did not invoke the extended period under Section 11A, so the extended limitation period could not be applied. The personal penalty consequently did not survive. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 04 Oct 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99857