https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=201985 Strict compliance with exemption conditions under Notification No. 4/2006-C.E. was required, and the pre-availment declaration of installed capacity was mandatory; filing it after claiming the benefit did not cure the default, so the exemption was denied. Use of another person's brand name also attracted the notification's express exclusion, and an assignment or consent arrangement did not override that bar; on the disclosed facts, suppression was upheld and the extended limitation period, with a second show cause notice for a distinct violation, was sustained. The duty, interest and company penalty remained in force, while the Director's personal penalty was reduced. en-us Mon, 01 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 14 Feb 2011 16:53:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=201985 Strict compliance with exemption conditions under Notification No. 4/2006-C.E. was required, and the pre-availment declaration of installed capacity was mandatory; filing it after claiming the benefit did not cure the default, so the exemption was denied. Use of another person's brand name also attracted the notification's express exclusion, and an assignment or consent arrangement did not override that bar; on the disclosed facts, suppression was upheld and the extended limitation period, with a second show cause notice for a distinct violation, was sustained. The duty, interest and company penalty remained in force, while the Director's personal penalty was reduced. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 01 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=201985