https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266799 Removal of inputs as such under Rule 3(4) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was held not to justify the extended period where the law on the issue had seen conflicting views and earlier decisions had already considered it. In the absence of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or any deliberate intent to evade duty, the statutory conditions for invoking the extended limitation period were not met. The assessee had also disclosed the relevant information during audit and acted under a bona fide understanding of the legal position, so the demand was barred by limitation. en-us Tue, 08 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 24 Oct 2015 08:36:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266799 Removal of inputs as such under Rule 3(4) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was held not to justify the extended period where the law on the issue had seen conflicting views and earlier decisions had already considered it. In the absence of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or any deliberate intent to evade duty, the statutory conditions for invoking the extended limitation period were not met. The assessee had also disclosed the relevant information during audit and acted under a bona fide understanding of the legal position, so the demand was barred by limitation. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 08 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266799