https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106244 Rule 196 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was examined in the context of Chapter X goods obtained for a declared use, where the declared product was later found to differ from the product actually packed. The order noted conflicting Tribunal views on whether duty could be demanded from the user-licensee or another party, and recorded a prima facie view that the extended period of limitation could apply where misdeclaration was alleged. It also held prima facie that earlier proceedings had not reached finality so res judicata did not bar fresh proceedings, and considered penalty to be attracted on the alleged misdeclaration. The unresolved questions were referred to a Larger Bench. en-us Thu, 11 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 13 Mar 2012 13:30:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106244 Rule 196 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was examined in the context of Chapter X goods obtained for a declared use, where the declared product was later found to differ from the product actually packed. The order noted conflicting Tribunal views on whether duty could be demanded from the user-licensee or another party, and recorded a prima facie view that the extended period of limitation could apply where misdeclaration was alleged. It also held prima facie that earlier proceedings had not reached finality so res judicata did not bar fresh proceedings, and considered penalty to be attracted on the alleged misdeclaration. The unresolved questions were referred to a Larger Bench. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 11 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106244