https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344982 Suppression of material particulars justified invocation of the extended limitation period under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, so the demand for reversal of MODVAT credit was held within time. On the merits, the recorded statements and surrounding evidence showed that the tin plates were of higher thickness and not used in manufacture, making the MODVAT credit wrongly availed and recoverable from the company. Penalty was sustainable against the company under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and a wrong statutory reference in the notice did not invalidate it where the factual basis and opportunity to defend were clear; penalties on the individual respondents were not restored. en-us Fri, 23 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 30 Dec 2017 14:30:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344982 Suppression of material particulars justified invocation of the extended limitation period under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, so the demand for reversal of MODVAT credit was held within time. On the merits, the recorded statements and surrounding evidence showed that the tin plates were of higher thickness and not used in manufacture, making the MODVAT credit wrongly availed and recoverable from the company. Penalty was sustainable against the company under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and a wrong statutory reference in the notice did not invalidate it where the factual basis and opportunity to defend were clear; penalties on the individual respondents were not restored. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 23 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344982