https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256603 Departmental knowledge of DTA clearances, evidenced by prior intimation and invoices signed by Central Excise officers, negatived any allegation of suppression, so the extended limitation period for duty recovery could not be invoked and demand remained confined to the normal period. On that basis, interest under Section 11AB and penalty under Rule 209A also failed, as the ingredients of fraud, wilful misstatement or knowing dealing in confiscable goods were not established. The transaction value was correctly treated as cum-duty price, consistent with Supreme Court valuation principles. The Revenue's challenge therefore failed on limitation, consequential interest and penalty, and valuation. en-us Fri, 09 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 17 Feb 2015 17:39:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256603 Departmental knowledge of DTA clearances, evidenced by prior intimation and invoices signed by Central Excise officers, negatived any allegation of suppression, so the extended limitation period for duty recovery could not be invoked and demand remained confined to the normal period. On that basis, interest under Section 11AB and penalty under Rule 209A also failed, as the ingredients of fraud, wilful misstatement or knowing dealing in confiscable goods were not established. The transaction value was correctly treated as cum-duty price, consistent with Supreme Court valuation principles. The Revenue's challenge therefore failed on limitation, consequential interest and penalty, and valuation. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 09 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256603