https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346641 Manipulation of records could not be relied on in de novo adjudication to invoke the extended period of limitation or sustain the differential duty demand and penalty under Notification No. 4/97-CE, because the earlier remand order had already found that allegation unsupported by adequate evidence and required inclusion of brokes readings for eligibility. Since that finding was not challenged by the Revenue, the adjudicating authority could not reuse the same basis to justify the demand. The differential duty demand and penalty were therefore set aside, and the assessee obtained relief. en-us Mon, 07 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 06 Mar 2019 14:48:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346641 Manipulation of records could not be relied on in de novo adjudication to invoke the extended period of limitation or sustain the differential duty demand and penalty under Notification No. 4/97-CE, because the earlier remand order had already found that allegation unsupported by adequate evidence and required inclusion of brokes readings for eligibility. Since that finding was not challenged by the Revenue, the adjudicating authority could not reuse the same basis to justify the demand. The differential duty demand and penalty were therefore set aside, and the assessee obtained relief. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 07 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346641