https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116513 Where the department permitted removal of inputs to a job worker on the assessee's disclosures, and correspondence showed full awareness that the final product attracted nil duty, the demand could not later be sustained on the plea that permission had been granted by mistake. In these circumstances, invocation of the extended period of limitation was not justified, and the demand was treated as time-barred. The commentary states that the demand and penalty could not be sustained once the Revenue had acted with knowledge of the relevant facts. en-us Thu, 25 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 13 Jun 2012 11:54:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116513 Where the department permitted removal of inputs to a job worker on the assessee's disclosures, and correspondence showed full awareness that the final product attracted nil duty, the demand could not later be sustained on the plea that permission had been granted by mistake. In these circumstances, invocation of the extended period of limitation was not justified, and the demand was treated as time-barred. The commentary states that the demand and penalty could not be sustained once the Revenue had acted with knowledge of the relevant facts. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 25 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116513