https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113901 A technical opinion showing that a machine parameter changed because of wear and tear, rather than deliberate alteration, can defeat allegations of wilful suppression in excise matters. Where the department cannot produce better evidence, re-determination of annual capacity and use of the extended period of limitation are not justified. On that footing, penalty and interest dependent on proved misstatement or suppression also fail, and duty may be re-quantified only for the normal period on the accepted parameters. en-us Tue, 01 Jun 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 09 May 2012 11:07:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113901 A technical opinion showing that a machine parameter changed because of wear and tear, rather than deliberate alteration, can defeat allegations of wilful suppression in excise matters. Where the department cannot produce better evidence, re-determination of annual capacity and use of the extended period of limitation are not justified. On that footing, penalty and interest dependent on proved misstatement or suppression also fail, and duty may be re-quantified only for the normal period on the accepted parameters. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 01 Jun 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113901