https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=233819 A concession under Notification No. 73/90-C.E. was available for goods used in rural telecommunication, and the assessee satisfied the substantive condition because the competent telecommunications authority certified the goods by reference to the purchase orders and technical particulars. The department's objection that the certificate was issued after clearance failed because timing alone could not defeat an otherwise fulfilled exemption requirement. The demand was also time-barred: the assessee had disclosed the clearances, filed the relevant classification and price lists and RT-12 returns, and those returns were assessed by the department, so suppression and the extended limitation period were not established. The revenue challenge therefore failed on both merits and limitation. en-us Fri, 15 Feb 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 08 Aug 2013 17:15:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=233819 A concession under Notification No. 73/90-C.E. was available for goods used in rural telecommunication, and the assessee satisfied the substantive condition because the competent telecommunications authority certified the goods by reference to the purchase orders and technical particulars. The department's objection that the certificate was issued after clearance failed because timing alone could not defeat an otherwise fulfilled exemption requirement. The demand was also time-barred: the assessee had disclosed the clearances, filed the relevant classification and price lists and RT-12 returns, and those returns were assessed by the department, so suppression and the extended limitation period were not established. The revenue challenge therefore failed on both merits and limitation. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 15 Feb 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=233819