https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259460 Extended limitation could not be invoked where export-linked clearances were reflected in invoices and records, had been subjected to departmental audits without objection, and there was no proof of wilful suppression or misstatement; the demand for the earlier period therefore failed. After the Supreme Court reversed the earlier Tribunal view on 09.08.2005, duty and interest became payable on the differential value for the later period, as the liability continued prospectively from that date. Penalty was set aside because the dispute arose from a bona fide interpretational issue rather than concealment or intent to evade duty. en-us Fri, 26 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 11 May 2015 11:38:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259460 Extended limitation could not be invoked where export-linked clearances were reflected in invoices and records, had been subjected to departmental audits without objection, and there was no proof of wilful suppression or misstatement; the demand for the earlier period therefore failed. After the Supreme Court reversed the earlier Tribunal view on 09.08.2005, duty and interest became payable on the differential value for the later period, as the liability continued prospectively from that date. Penalty was set aside because the dispute arose from a bona fide interpretational issue rather than concealment or intent to evade duty. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 26 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259460