https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51431 Suppression of manufacturing activity and unwithdrawn admissions were treated as sufficient to sustain findings of clandestine removal and to justify invocation of the extended limitation period. The duty liability was not finally fixed because cum-duty valuation and admissible Modvat credit had to be re-examined by the adjudicating authority. Penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was held unsustainable for the relevant period since the provision was not then in force. The exemption claim and related Chapter X procedure were also sent back for fresh consideration on merits. en-us Fri, 23 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 24 Sep 2010 17:16:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51431 Suppression of manufacturing activity and unwithdrawn admissions were treated as sufficient to sustain findings of clandestine removal and to justify invocation of the extended limitation period. The duty liability was not finally fixed because cum-duty valuation and admissible Modvat credit had to be re-examined by the adjudicating authority. Penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was held unsustainable for the relevant period since the provision was not then in force. The exemption claim and related Chapter X procedure were also sent back for fresh consideration on merits. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 23 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51431