https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207535 Extended limitation under excise law could not be invoked where the department had prior knowledge of the assessee's nylon monofilament yarn activity and no suppression or wilful misstatement was shown; the demand was therefore confined to the normal limitation period. Exemption depended on whether the yarn's denierage stayed within the notified tolerance, and denierage could be determined mathematically from production records and invoices where actual departmental measurement was absent. On that basis, products within tolerance remained exempt, while yarn of 0.25 mm, 0.30 mm and 0.35 mm attracted duty for the normal period, subject to proportionate Cenvat credit adjustment. Penalties could not survive once the demand was restricted and required re-quantification. en-us Thu, 24 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 16 Dec 2011 07:04:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207535 Extended limitation under excise law could not be invoked where the department had prior knowledge of the assessee's nylon monofilament yarn activity and no suppression or wilful misstatement was shown; the demand was therefore confined to the normal limitation period. Exemption depended on whether the yarn's denierage stayed within the notified tolerance, and denierage could be determined mathematically from production records and invoices where actual departmental measurement was absent. On that basis, products within tolerance remained exempt, while yarn of 0.25 mm, 0.30 mm and 0.35 mm attracted duty for the normal period, subject to proportionate Cenvat credit adjustment. Penalties could not survive once the demand was restricted and required re-quantification. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 24 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207535