https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325251 Extended limitation under central excise law was unavailable where the assessee had separately discharged service tax on mounting activity, paid excise duty on fabricated bodies, and the department had accepted the arrangement without objection. Because the activity was disclosed, carried out under separate purchase orders, and the duty paid was creditable to the customer, the transaction was treated as revenue neutral and there was no positive suppression, misstatement, or mala fide intent to evade duty. Penalty also failed on the same facts, as the basis for penal action did not survive. The demand was confined to the normal period, remanded for quantification after credit for service tax already paid, and penalty was deleted. en-us Wed, 17 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 15 Mar 2016 13:56:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325251 Extended limitation under central excise law was unavailable where the assessee had separately discharged service tax on mounting activity, paid excise duty on fabricated bodies, and the department had accepted the arrangement without objection. Because the activity was disclosed, carried out under separate purchase orders, and the duty paid was creditable to the customer, the transaction was treated as revenue neutral and there was no positive suppression, misstatement, or mala fide intent to evade duty. Penalty also failed on the same facts, as the basis for penal action did not survive. The demand was confined to the normal period, remanded for quantification after credit for service tax already paid, and penalty was deleted. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 17 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325251