https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=238485 Conflicting judicial views on compliance with Chapter X for branded goods supported the assessee's bona fide belief regarding exemption, so non-disclosure was not treated as deliberate suppression with intent to evade duty. On that basis, the extended period of limitation could not be fully invoked and only the demand within the normal limitation period survived for quantification. For the same reason, the ingredients for penalty under section 11AC were not established, and the penalty was set aside. en-us Tue, 03 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 08 Feb 2016 17:49:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=238485 Conflicting judicial views on compliance with Chapter X for branded goods supported the assessee's bona fide belief regarding exemption, so non-disclosure was not treated as deliberate suppression with intent to evade duty. On that basis, the extended period of limitation could not be fully invoked and only the demand within the normal limitation period survived for quantification. For the same reason, the ingredients for penalty under section 11AC were not established, and the penalty was set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 03 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=238485