https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3749 Full disclosure of the manufacturing process, nature of the yarn, exemption claim and monthly duty position in declarations and returns defeated invocation of the extended period, because the record already enabled the department to assess the goods and the absence of a brand name was immaterial; the demand was therefore barred by limitation. On merits, the demand also failed on the correct cum-duty computation with credit-related adjustments, and once the substantive levy was unsustainable the consequential penalty could not survive. en-us Tue, 24 Jul 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 25 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3749 Full disclosure of the manufacturing process, nature of the yarn, exemption claim and monthly duty position in declarations and returns defeated invocation of the extended period, because the record already enabled the department to assess the goods and the absence of a brand name was immaterial; the demand was therefore barred by limitation. On merits, the demand also failed on the correct cum-duty computation with credit-related adjustments, and once the substantive levy was unsustainable the consequential penalty could not survive. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 24 Jul 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3749