https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374811 Exemption notifications for goods containing at least 25% by weight of fly ash were construed strictly, and fly ash already present in inputs was not counted for satisfying the threshold because the notification did not clearly permit that approach. On that construction, the broader exemption claim failed. For limitation and penalty, the presence of disclosed returns and recorded information about fly ash content meant there was no proof of fraud, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or intent to evade duty, so extended limitation and penalty were not sustainable. The demand therefore survived only for the normal period, while the extended-period demand and penalty were set aside. en-us Thu, 07 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 29 Aug 2019 12:25:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374811 Exemption notifications for goods containing at least 25% by weight of fly ash were construed strictly, and fly ash already present in inputs was not counted for satisfying the threshold because the notification did not clearly permit that approach. On that construction, the broader exemption claim failed. For limitation and penalty, the presence of disclosed returns and recorded information about fly ash content meant there was no proof of fraud, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or intent to evade duty, so extended limitation and penalty were not sustainable. The demand therefore survived only for the normal period, while the extended-period demand and penalty were set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 07 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374811