https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153592 The tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) as there was no suppression of facts and the department failed to verify the exemption claimed by the respondent. This led to the rejection of the Revenue's appeal regarding the demand for 10% of the price of exempted goods cleared. The extended period for duty demand was deemed invalid as there was no evidence of suppression of facts, resulting in no penalty imposition under Section 11AC. en-us Tue, 11 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 12 May 2017 07:10:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153592 The tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) as there was no suppression of facts and the department failed to verify the exemption claimed by the respondent. This led to the rejection of the Revenue's appeal regarding the demand for 10% of the price of exempted goods cleared. The extended period for duty demand was deemed invalid as there was no evidence of suppression of facts, resulting in no penalty imposition under Section 11AC. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 11 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153592