https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753141 The Calcutta HC allowed the appeal, setting aside orders from the Tribunal and adjudicating authority. The Court held that the department exceeded the scope of the show-cause notice by basing its decision on post-reply inspections rather than original allegations. The appellant had properly informed the department about claiming exemption under notification dated 10.02.1986 for handicraft products and provided detailed justifications. The Court found no material evidence of misdeclaration or willful misstatement with intent to evade duty, ruling that the extended period of limitation could not be invoked without such proof. en-us Fri, 24 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 26 May 2024 14:23:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753141 The Calcutta HC allowed the appeal, setting aside orders from the Tribunal and adjudicating authority. The Court held that the department exceeded the scope of the show-cause notice by basing its decision on post-reply inspections rather than original allegations. The appellant had properly informed the department about claiming exemption under notification dated 10.02.1986 for handicraft products and provided detailed justifications. The Court found no material evidence of misdeclaration or willful misstatement with intent to evade duty, ruling that the extended period of limitation could not be invoked without such proof. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 24 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753141