https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190857 Where exemption entitlement was disputed amid conflicting Board clarifications and Tribunal views, the text states that no suppression, wilful misstatement, or mala fide intent could be attributed to the assessee; accordingly, the extended period of limitation was not available and recovery survived only for the normal period. For that surviving demand, the text says the quantification had to be redone by examining cenvat credit on inputs, allowing cum-duty valuation, and dropping penalty because the absence of suppression removed its basis. The matter was therefore remitted for limited re-determination confined to the normal period with consequential adjustments on valuation and credit. en-us Thu, 08 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 05 Mar 2017 13:52:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190857 Where exemption entitlement was disputed amid conflicting Board clarifications and Tribunal views, the text states that no suppression, wilful misstatement, or mala fide intent could be attributed to the assessee; accordingly, the extended period of limitation was not available and recovery survived only for the normal period. For that surviving demand, the text says the quantification had to be redone by examining cenvat credit on inputs, allowing cum-duty valuation, and dropping penalty because the absence of suppression removed its basis. The matter was therefore remitted for limited re-determination confined to the normal period with consequential adjustments on valuation and credit. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 08 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190857