https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119985 Non-disclosure in excise documents of whether the inputs were imported or indigenous, where that fact determined the applicable duty rate, was treated as suppression of material facts with intent to evade duty. The limitation plea therefore failed and the demand was sustained on that ground. Deliberate suppression also justified penalty under Rule 173Q, though the Tribunal moderated the quantum on the facts and reduced it to Rs. 1,00,000. Interest was held recoverable under Section 11AB in accordance with the statute. The appeal succeeded only to the limited extent of penalty reduction, while the findings on limitation and interest were maintained. en-us Mon, 11 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 22 Feb 2024 15:13:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119985 Non-disclosure in excise documents of whether the inputs were imported or indigenous, where that fact determined the applicable duty rate, was treated as suppression of material facts with intent to evade duty. The limitation plea therefore failed and the demand was sustained on that ground. Deliberate suppression also justified penalty under Rule 173Q, though the Tribunal moderated the quantum on the facts and reduced it to Rs. 1,00,000. Interest was held recoverable under Section 11AB in accordance with the statute. The appeal succeeded only to the limited extent of penalty reduction, while the findings on limitation and interest were maintained. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 11 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119985