https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271854 Demand for reversal of 8% under Rule 6(3)(b) was held time-barred because the department already knew the clearances of exempted goods, the reversal practice was disclosed, and no allegation of intent to evade duty was established, so the extended limitation period could not be invoked. The quantification was also upheld: the 8% amount was linked to the contract sale value of the bare pipes, and transportation cost was excluded from the reversal computation. On both limitation and merits, the demand and penalty were set aside and the appeal failed. en-us Tue, 02 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 15 Nov 2016 13:21:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271854 Demand for reversal of 8% under Rule 6(3)(b) was held time-barred because the department already knew the clearances of exempted goods, the reversal practice was disclosed, and no allegation of intent to evade duty was established, so the extended limitation period could not be invoked. The quantification was also upheld: the 8% amount was linked to the contract sale value of the bare pipes, and transportation cost was excluded from the reversal computation. On both limitation and merits, the demand and penalty were set aside and the appeal failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 02 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271854