https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=239700 Disclosure of the valuation basis in price declarations under Rule 173C, accepted by the Department without objection, prevented invocation of the extended limitation period because suppression or wilful misstatement was not established. The alleged non-disclosure of the directors' relationship did not override the fact that the basis of valuation was already before the Department, so the demand was barred by limitation. The dispute was also revenue neutral, as duty paid by the assessee was available as credit to the sister unit and used for payment of duty on the final product; that neutrality further negated any basis for alleging mala fides and supported rejection of the demand. en-us Thu, 29 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 19 Nov 2013 10:35:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=239700 Disclosure of the valuation basis in price declarations under Rule 173C, accepted by the Department without objection, prevented invocation of the extended limitation period because suppression or wilful misstatement was not established. The alleged non-disclosure of the directors' relationship did not override the fact that the basis of valuation was already before the Department, so the demand was barred by limitation. The dispute was also revenue neutral, as duty paid by the assessee was available as credit to the sister unit and used for payment of duty on the final product; that neutrality further negated any basis for alleging mala fides and supported rejection of the demand. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 29 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=239700