https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=375117 An exemption confined to captive use within the factory does not extend to parts of electric motors cleared to Railway Zones for use as spare parts, because such clearances are outside factory consumption. The extended limitation period under central excise law was not sustainable on the facts, as suppression with intent to evade duty was not established; consequently, demand beyond the normal period could not survive. A second notice could not again rely on the same extended-period basis. In the absence of sustainable suppression, the penalty under Rule 173Q also fell away, leaving only the demand within the normal limitation period for quantification. en-us Thu, 10 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 15 Feb 2019 08:05:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=375117 An exemption confined to captive use within the factory does not extend to parts of electric motors cleared to Railway Zones for use as spare parts, because such clearances are outside factory consumption. The extended limitation period under central excise law was not sustainable on the facts, as suppression with intent to evade duty was not established; consequently, demand beyond the normal period could not survive. A second notice could not again rely on the same extended-period basis. In the absence of sustainable suppression, the penalty under Rule 173Q also fell away, leaving only the demand within the normal limitation period for quantification. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 10 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=375117