https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349498 Identical clearances to a 100% EOU could not be treated as mere removals as such where the same goods had been accepted as manufactured goods in comparable clearances and the department had collected duty on those transactions. On that basis, the benefit of Notification No. 22/2003-CE could not be denied. The Tribunal also held that extended limitation was unavailable because the assessee had filed regular returns, cleared goods under CT-3 cover, and disclosed the relevant facts in correspondence; there was no suppression or wilful misstatement with intent to evade duty. The plea for damages or costs was rejected, and the demand, interest, and penalties were sustained only insofar as they had already been set aside below. en-us Fri, 13 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 03 Feb 2018 16:33:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349498 Identical clearances to a 100% EOU could not be treated as mere removals as such where the same goods had been accepted as manufactured goods in comparable clearances and the department had collected duty on those transactions. On that basis, the benefit of Notification No. 22/2003-CE could not be denied. The Tribunal also held that extended limitation was unavailable because the assessee had filed regular returns, cleared goods under CT-3 cover, and disclosed the relevant facts in correspondence; there was no suppression or wilful misstatement with intent to evade duty. The plea for damages or costs was rejected, and the demand, interest, and penalties were sustained only insofar as they had already been set aside below. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 13 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349498