https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383065 Extended period of limitation was held inapplicable because the appellant maintained regular ER-1 returns, dealt with registered manufacturers, and the record showed no deliberate suppression, misrepresentation, or contravention. The demand arose from an alleged failure to include the value of free-supplied metal components in assessable value, but the situation was revenue neutral since the duty, if any, would have been available as Cenvat credit to the recipient manufacturers. The appeal succeeded. en-us Fri, 05 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 17 Jul 2019 07:50:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383065 Extended period of limitation was held inapplicable because the appellant maintained regular ER-1 returns, dealt with registered manufacturers, and the record showed no deliberate suppression, misrepresentation, or contravention. The demand arose from an alleged failure to include the value of free-supplied metal components in assessable value, but the situation was revenue neutral since the duty, if any, would have been available as Cenvat credit to the recipient manufacturers. The appeal succeeded. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 05 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383065