https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123767 Differential central excise duty demand against job workers was treated as time-barred because there was no evidence that they knew of, or ated in, the undervaluation allegedly adopted by the merchant-manufacturers. The processing units had paid duty on the assessable value declared in the invoices, had no independent means to verify a lower value, and filed their price declarations on that basis. On these facts, the extended limitation period was unavailable, so the demand was barred by limitation. As the demand failed on limitation, the penalty could not survive. en-us Thu, 03 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 18 Sep 2017 10:51:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123767 Differential central excise duty demand against job workers was treated as time-barred because there was no evidence that they knew of, or ated in, the undervaluation allegedly adopted by the merchant-manufacturers. The processing units had paid duty on the assessable value declared in the invoices, had no independent means to verify a lower value, and filed their price declarations on that basis. On these facts, the extended limitation period was unavailable, so the demand was barred by limitation. As the demand failed on limitation, the penalty could not survive. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 03 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123767