https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383128 Duty-free raw material found unaccounted could not be assessed under the proviso to Section 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 because that provision applies to goods manufactured or produced by a 100% EOU; recovery was confined to the duty forgone under the governing exemption notification for improper accountal or use. The limitation challenge under Section 11A failed because departmental knowledge of non-accountal, by itself, did not defeat invocation of the extended period where the statutory conditions were otherwise met. Penalty under Section 11AC was to be re-quantified in line with the revised duty liability, while the director's penalty under Rule 26 was sustained on the basis of his admitted role in diversion of duty-free material. en-us Tue, 16 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 18 Jul 2019 11:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383128 Duty-free raw material found unaccounted could not be assessed under the proviso to Section 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 because that provision applies to goods manufactured or produced by a 100% EOU; recovery was confined to the duty forgone under the governing exemption notification for improper accountal or use. The limitation challenge under Section 11A failed because departmental knowledge of non-accountal, by itself, did not defeat invocation of the extended period where the statutory conditions were otherwise met. Penalty under Section 11AC was to be re-quantified in line with the revised duty liability, while the director's penalty under Rule 26 was sustained on the basis of his admitted role in diversion of duty-free material. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 16 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383128