https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50160 Notification No. 5/98-C.E. was interpreted to mean that exemption cannot be denied merely because Modvat credit was taken on inputs used for other final products manufactured in the same factory; the condition barred credit on the goods covered by the notification or on any other product itself, not on inputs used in relation to different goods. On limitation, the extended period under excise law was unavailable because the assessee had disclosed its manufacturing activity through earlier declarations and returns, and mere omission in one declaration did not amount to suppression with intent to evade duty. The exemption was therefore available and the demand was time-barred. en-us Wed, 20 Sep 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 20 Aug 2010 10:58:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50160 Notification No. 5/98-C.E. was interpreted to mean that exemption cannot be denied merely because Modvat credit was taken on inputs used for other final products manufactured in the same factory; the condition barred credit on the goods covered by the notification or on any other product itself, not on inputs used in relation to different goods. On limitation, the extended period under excise law was unavailable because the assessee had disclosed its manufacturing activity through earlier declarations and returns, and mere omission in one declaration did not amount to suppression with intent to evade duty. The exemption was therefore available and the demand was time-barred. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 20 Sep 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50160