https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121033 Disclosure of the cost certificate and price declaration defeated invocation of the extended limitation period, because the department had accepted the declared break-up and later could not allege suppression of cost elements already placed before it. The valuation-based demand also failed on revenue neutrality, as adoption of the higher assessable value would not have generated additional revenue on the record. The penalty on the employee-authorised signatory under Rule 209A was set aside because he acted only in the course of employment and there was no basis to show knowledge that the goods were liable to confiscation. en-us Thu, 05 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 26 Jul 2012 11:49:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121033 Disclosure of the cost certificate and price declaration defeated invocation of the extended limitation period, because the department had accepted the declared break-up and later could not allege suppression of cost elements already placed before it. The valuation-based demand also failed on revenue neutrality, as adoption of the higher assessable value would not have generated additional revenue on the record. The penalty on the employee-authorised signatory under Rule 209A was set aside because he acted only in the course of employment and there was no basis to show knowledge that the goods were liable to confiscation. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 05 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121033