https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1439 The extended limitation period under the Central Excise Act was considered unavailable where the assessee had disclosed its valuation basis through correspondence, Chartered Accountant certificates, returns and cost sheets, showing that depreciation on plant and building was not included in cost of production under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules. On those facts, suppression with intent to evade duty was not established. The dispute was also treated as revenue neutral because any duty paid would have been available as credit to the interconnected unit, further negating intent to evade. As a result, the demand for duty, interest and penalty based on extended limitation was set aside, while the undisputed duty portion remained undisturbed. en-us Mon, 14 May 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 14 Apr 2008 18:27:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1439 The extended limitation period under the Central Excise Act was considered unavailable where the assessee had disclosed its valuation basis through correspondence, Chartered Accountant certificates, returns and cost sheets, showing that depreciation on plant and building was not included in cost of production under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules. On those facts, suppression with intent to evade duty was not established. The dispute was also treated as revenue neutral because any duty paid would have been available as credit to the interconnected unit, further negating intent to evade. As a result, the demand for duty, interest and penalty based on extended limitation was set aside, while the undisputed duty portion remained undisturbed. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 14 May 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1439