https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100645 Extended-period duty demand under Rule 57-I was not sustainable for consignments where the supplier's gate passes clearly endorsed the set-off under Notification No. 432/86-C.E., because that endorsement put the department on notice that part of the duty was not available as credit. For consignments from other suppliers, the gate passes did not clearly establish comparable departmental knowledge, so the limitation objection could not be accepted on the same basis. The demand therefore survived only in part, and the admissible duty amount had to be reworked on remand with supporting details. en-us Mon, 17 Sep 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 03 Feb 2012 17:14:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100645 Extended-period duty demand under Rule 57-I was not sustainable for consignments where the supplier's gate passes clearly endorsed the set-off under Notification No. 432/86-C.E., because that endorsement put the department on notice that part of the duty was not available as credit. For consignments from other suppliers, the gate passes did not clearly establish comparable departmental knowledge, so the limitation objection could not be accepted on the same basis. The demand therefore survived only in part, and the admissible duty amount had to be reworked on remand with supporting details. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 17 Sep 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100645