https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2685 Where liability turned on a debatable interpretation of "feedstock" under Notification No. 4/97-C.E., the Tribunal held that the extended period could not be invoked because the assessee had obtained furnace oil against departmental CT-2 certificates and the relevant facts were already within the Revenue's knowledge. Suppression, misstatement, or mala fide intent was therefore not established, so the demand survived only for the period within limitation and was remanded for quantification. On penalty, the Tribunal held that reliance on prevailing judicial views and departmental certificates negated deliberate default, so the penalty was set aside. en-us Mon, 20 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 16 Apr 2008 10:30:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2685 Where liability turned on a debatable interpretation of "feedstock" under Notification No. 4/97-C.E., the Tribunal held that the extended period could not be invoked because the assessee had obtained furnace oil against departmental CT-2 certificates and the relevant facts were already within the Revenue's knowledge. Suppression, misstatement, or mala fide intent was therefore not established, so the demand survived only for the period within limitation and was remanded for quantification. On penalty, the Tribunal held that reliance on prevailing judicial views and departmental certificates negated deliberate default, so the penalty was set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 20 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2685