https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3806 False declaration and deliberate misstatement about branded and unbranded clearances justified invocation of the extended limitation period under the Central Excise law, because the assessee withheld specific brand details while seeking SSI exemption. On merits, the exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E. was unavailable once the clearance threshold was crossed, so the duty demand was sustainable for excess clearances. Penalty under Section 11AC could not, however, be imposed for a period preceding its introduction, as a penal provision cannot operate retrospectively. The duty demand was therefore upheld, but the penalty was set aside. en-us Thu, 04 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 02 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3806 False declaration and deliberate misstatement about branded and unbranded clearances justified invocation of the extended limitation period under the Central Excise law, because the assessee withheld specific brand details while seeking SSI exemption. On merits, the exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E. was unavailable once the clearance threshold was crossed, so the duty demand was sustainable for excess clearances. Penalty under Section 11AC could not, however, be imposed for a period preceding its introduction, as a penal provision cannot operate retrospectively. The duty demand was therefore upheld, but the penalty was set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 04 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3806