https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237147 For duty demands arising from clearances claimed under Notification No. 6/2002-C.E., the extended period of limitation was not available because the record indicated invoice disclosure, customer certificates, Cenvat reversals and prior exemption/refund proceedings, showing a bona fide interpretative dispute on whether wires and cables qualified as parts of aero planes and helicopters. In the absence of convincing evidence of deliberate misstatement, suppression or intent to mislead, the demand could not be sustained for the extended period. The consequential penalty also failed because it depended on the same extended-period demand and there was no basis for penal action. en-us Thu, 28 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 19 Sep 2013 11:30:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237147 For duty demands arising from clearances claimed under Notification No. 6/2002-C.E., the extended period of limitation was not available because the record indicated invoice disclosure, customer certificates, Cenvat reversals and prior exemption/refund proceedings, showing a bona fide interpretative dispute on whether wires and cables qualified as parts of aero planes and helicopters. In the absence of convincing evidence of deliberate misstatement, suppression or intent to mislead, the demand could not be sustained for the extended period. The consequential penalty also failed because it depended on the same extended-period demand and there was no basis for penal action. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 28 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237147