https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116979 Extended limitation was upheld because the classification lists did not disclose any claim to single-processing exemption, no material established the nature or number of processes undertaken, and the record showed unaccounted clearances supported by private records and contemporaneous charts. The exemption plea failed on the evidence, and the concealment of removals justified invocation of the extended period. Penalty, however, could not be sustained for a period predating the amendment introducing the offences-and-penalties framework, as the amended provision was held inapplicable retrospectively. Duty demand and clandestine removal findings were sustained, but the penalty was set aside. en-us Thu, 05 May 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 19 Jun 2012 13:29:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116979 Extended limitation was upheld because the classification lists did not disclose any claim to single-processing exemption, no material established the nature or number of processes undertaken, and the record showed unaccounted clearances supported by private records and contemporaneous charts. The exemption plea failed on the evidence, and the concealment of removals justified invocation of the extended period. Penalty, however, could not be sustained for a period predating the amendment introducing the offences-and-penalties framework, as the amended provision was held inapplicable retrospectively. Duty demand and clandestine removal findings were sustained, but the penalty was set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 05 May 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116979