https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337526 Repeated disclosure of the computation method through letters, ER-1 returns, invoices and work-order details meant the department was on notice of the basis adopted under Rule 6(3)(b) of the CENVAT Credit Rules. On that factual basis, a wrong method of computation did not amount to suppression of facts or wilful misstatement with intent to evade duty, so the extended period under the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could not be invoked. The demand was therefore held time-barred and the penalty set aside. en-us Wed, 16 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 11 Jan 2017 07:22:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337526 Repeated disclosure of the computation method through letters, ER-1 returns, invoices and work-order details meant the department was on notice of the basis adopted under Rule 6(3)(b) of the CENVAT Credit Rules. On that factual basis, a wrong method of computation did not amount to suppression of facts or wilful misstatement with intent to evade duty, so the extended period under the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could not be invoked. The demand was therefore held time-barred and the penalty set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 16 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337526