https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46878 Parts used for repair or replacement during the warranty period were treated as dutiable goods, so excise duty was upheld on those parts. However, where earlier show cause notices on the same subject-matter were already pending, suppression or wilful misstatement could not be inferred for the later notice, making the extended limitation period under Section 11A unavailable. Penalty also failed for want of suppression. The result was that duty liability on the parts remained, but the assessee succeeded on limitation and penalty. en-us Thu, 27 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 27 Sep 2025 14:02:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46878 Parts used for repair or replacement during the warranty period were treated as dutiable goods, so excise duty was upheld on those parts. However, where earlier show cause notices on the same subject-matter were already pending, suppression or wilful misstatement could not be inferred for the later notice, making the extended limitation period under Section 11A unavailable. Penalty also failed for want of suppression. The result was that duty liability on the parts remained, but the assessee succeeded on limitation and penalty. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 27 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46878