https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=417343 In an excise valuation dispute involving inclusion of the amortised cost of free-supplied patterns, CESTAT Mumbai held that the extended period of limitation could not be invoked because wilful suppression and intent to evade duty were not established. The record showed no clinching documentary evidence of deliberate suppression, and mere non-filing of price declarations under the relevant rule was insufficient by itself to prove suppression. The Tribunal also treated the interpretational nature of the controversy and the absence of penalty ingredients as supporting the same conclusion. The duty demand was therefore unsustainable. en-us Wed, 19 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 21 Jan 2022 08:50:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=417343 In an excise valuation dispute involving inclusion of the amortised cost of free-supplied patterns, CESTAT Mumbai held that the extended period of limitation could not be invoked because wilful suppression and intent to evade duty were not established. The record showed no clinching documentary evidence of deliberate suppression, and mere non-filing of price declarations under the relevant rule was insufficient by itself to prove suppression. The Tribunal also treated the interpretational nature of the controversy and the absence of penalty ingredients as supporting the same conclusion. The duty demand was therefore unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 19 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=417343