https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166208 Extended limitation under the proviso to Rule 10 required specific pleading and proof of fraud, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or intent to evade duty; absent that foundation, the ordinary six-month limitation applied and the demand was time-barred. Penalty under Rule 173Q likewise depended on contravention with intent to evade duty, so mere breach was insufficient without mens rea. Repeal of Rule 10 and its replacement by Section 11A did not abate pending proceedings, as the later provision was treated as a continuation of the same liability-enforcement mechanism. A process that remelted rejected pistons into fresh pistons amounted to manufacture, so it fell outside the limited protection for remaking or repairs under Rule 173H. en-us Tue, 14 Jun 1983 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 28 Aug 2014 18:43:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166208 Extended limitation under the proviso to Rule 10 required specific pleading and proof of fraud, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or intent to evade duty; absent that foundation, the ordinary six-month limitation applied and the demand was time-barred. Penalty under Rule 173Q likewise depended on contravention with intent to evade duty, so mere breach was insufficient without mens rea. Repeal of Rule 10 and its replacement by Section 11A did not abate pending proceedings, as the later provision was treated as a continuation of the same liability-enforcement mechanism. A process that remelted rejected pistons into fresh pistons amounted to manufacture, so it fell outside the limited protection for remaking or repairs under Rule 173H. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 14 Jun 1983 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166208