https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=216685 Extended limitation under Rule 10 was attracted because the classification list and related remarks were held to have misled the excise authorities; the omission to disclose the earlier exemption arrangement in the expected manner meant the demand was not time-barred. The article also explains that Notification No. 71/78-C.E. for home clearances could be retained only for eligible clearances, while the benefit earlier taken under Notification No. 101/71-C.E. for OEM clearances could not be simultaneously retained where the later notification's exclusion applied. The interplay of the two exemptions operated in different fields, but overlapping fiscal benefits for the same value were not permitted once the statutory exclusion operated. en-us Mon, 11 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 19 Sep 2012 22:23:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=216685 Extended limitation under Rule 10 was attracted because the classification list and related remarks were held to have misled the excise authorities; the omission to disclose the earlier exemption arrangement in the expected manner meant the demand was not time-barred. The article also explains that Notification No. 71/78-C.E. for home clearances could be retained only for eligible clearances, while the benefit earlier taken under Notification No. 101/71-C.E. for OEM clearances could not be simultaneously retained where the later notification's exclusion applied. The interplay of the two exemptions operated in different fields, but overlapping fiscal benefits for the same value were not permitted once the statutory exclusion operated. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 11 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=216685