https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42870 The Appellate Tribunal upheld the duty demand against the petitioners for clearing iron bars without paying appropriate duty, citing ambiguity in description as suppression under Rule 10. However, the Tribunal waived the penalty, finding no evidence of deliberate mis-statement. The Tribunal emphasized the need for evidence of willful mis-statement or suppression to apply the extended period of limitation, which was not met in this case. The petitioners' adherence to the Self Removal Procedure and lack of conscious duty evasion led to the Tribunal quashing the earlier order and each party bearing their own costs. en-us Thu, 27 Sep 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 14 Jun 2010 17:28:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42870 The Appellate Tribunal upheld the duty demand against the petitioners for clearing iron bars without paying appropriate duty, citing ambiguity in description as suppression under Rule 10. However, the Tribunal waived the penalty, finding no evidence of deliberate mis-statement. The Tribunal emphasized the need for evidence of willful mis-statement or suppression to apply the extended period of limitation, which was not met in this case. The petitioners' adherence to the Self Removal Procedure and lack of conscious duty evasion led to the Tribunal quashing the earlier order and each party bearing their own costs. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 27 Sep 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42870