https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211090 Returned goods that did not undergo manufacture were held to fall under Rule 16(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 rather than Rule 16(1), so the assessee's plea of bona fide belief failed. The claimed belief was not raised before the adjudicating authority or in appeal, and no responsible individual was identified to support it for the corporate assessee. Since suppression of facts and invocation of the extended period under Section 11A had already been recorded and had attained finality, the statutory conditions for penalty under Section 11AC were satisfied. Penalty was therefore sustained and no interference was warranted. en-us Fri, 08 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 07 Dec 2013 12:13:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211090 Returned goods that did not undergo manufacture were held to fall under Rule 16(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 rather than Rule 16(1), so the assessee's plea of bona fide belief failed. The claimed belief was not raised before the adjudicating authority or in appeal, and no responsible individual was identified to support it for the corporate assessee. Since suppression of facts and invocation of the extended period under Section 11A had already been recorded and had attained finality, the statutory conditions for penalty under Section 11AC were satisfied. Penalty was therefore sustained and no interference was warranted. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 08 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211090