https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=241148 The commentary states that, where duty is demanded on waste and scrap said to arise from inputs or capital goods on which credit was allegedly taken, the Revenue must prove actual availment of credit; in the absence of records or other evidence, liability on clearance of scrap cannot be presumed. It also notes that mere non-intimation does not by itself establish suppression or misstatement with intent to evade duty, so the extended limitation period is unavailable without material showing mala fide conduct. On that reasoning, the demand was set aside and consequential relief followed. en-us Fri, 12 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Dec 2013 08:46:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=241148 The commentary states that, where duty is demanded on waste and scrap said to arise from inputs or capital goods on which credit was allegedly taken, the Revenue must prove actual availment of credit; in the absence of records or other evidence, liability on clearance of scrap cannot be presumed. It also notes that mere non-intimation does not by itself establish suppression or misstatement with intent to evade duty, so the extended limitation period is unavailable without material showing mala fide conduct. On that reasoning, the demand was set aside and consequential relief followed. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 12 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=241148