https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108948 Duty exemption under Notification No. 183/88-C.E. was unavailable for the disputed period because the goods fell under Chapter 26, while small-scale exemption had already been allowed only up to the prescribed limit. Concessional duty and Modvat credit were not entertained because no supporting material was produced and the Modvat claim had not been raised before the authorities below. Suppression of material facts and non-registration with Central Excise justified invocation of the extended period of limitation. Penalty under Section 11AC read with Rule 173Q was treated as sustainable where duty remained unpaid and the relevant facts were withheld, and separate apportionment between overlapping penalty provisions was not treated as necessary. en-us Mon, 31 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 05 Apr 2012 10:59:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108948 Duty exemption under Notification No. 183/88-C.E. was unavailable for the disputed period because the goods fell under Chapter 26, while small-scale exemption had already been allowed only up to the prescribed limit. Concessional duty and Modvat credit were not entertained because no supporting material was produced and the Modvat claim had not been raised before the authorities below. Suppression of material facts and non-registration with Central Excise justified invocation of the extended period of limitation. Penalty under Section 11AC read with Rule 173Q was treated as sustainable where duty remained unpaid and the relevant facts were withheld, and separate apportionment between overlapping penalty provisions was not treated as necessary. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 31 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108948