https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335446 The Tribunal allowed the appeals by M/s. Parekh Prints, setting aside the penalty imposed for under-valuation of processed goods. The Tribunal found that the appellants were not involved in the mis-declaration of value, thus the extended period of demand could not be invoked against them. It was emphasized that without evidence of the appellants' knowledge of mis-declaration, the penalty imposition was unjustified. The decision was based on the absence of proof implicating the appellants and the lack of justification for applying the extended period of limitation. en-us Tue, 22 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 13 Dec 2016 10:28:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335446 The Tribunal allowed the appeals by M/s. Parekh Prints, setting aside the penalty imposed for under-valuation of processed goods. The Tribunal found that the appellants were not involved in the mis-declaration of value, thus the extended period of demand could not be invoked against them. It was emphasized that without evidence of the appellants' knowledge of mis-declaration, the penalty imposition was unjustified. The decision was based on the absence of proof implicating the appellants and the lack of justification for applying the extended period of limitation. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 22 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335446