https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108207 Duty demand was upheld where the record showed that rejected bearings were not brought back for reprocessing and fresh bearings were instead cleared as replacement, supporting an inference of misdeclaration and deliberate evasion; the extended period was therefore justified. A separate demand was remanded because the adjudication had gone beyond the show cause notice by including D-3 transactions not alleged there, so recomputation was confined to the transactions actually noticed. The procedural lapse in falsely showing timely receipt of rejected goods was sustained as more than a technical breach, with penalty left to be refixed after the partial remand. en-us Tue, 21 May 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 30 Mar 2012 14:47:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108207 Duty demand was upheld where the record showed that rejected bearings were not brought back for reprocessing and fresh bearings were instead cleared as replacement, supporting an inference of misdeclaration and deliberate evasion; the extended period was therefore justified. A separate demand was remanded because the adjudication had gone beyond the show cause notice by including D-3 transactions not alleged there, so recomputation was confined to the transactions actually noticed. The procedural lapse in falsely showing timely receipt of rejected goods was sustained as more than a technical breach, with penalty left to be refixed after the partial remand. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 21 May 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108207