https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52656 A solitary duty-paid clearance, supported by a mark treated as identification and not a brand name, did not constitute an exercise of option under the first proviso to para 4 of Notification No. 1/93-C.E. because no written option was filed and the evidence suggested a clerical error rather than a deemed election. The demand on that basis was therefore not sustainable. The extended period of limitation also failed, as the show cause notice was issued beyond the normal period and the record did not establish deliberate suppression or misdeclaration. In the absence of substantiating material, the demand was barred by limitation and the penalty could not survive. en-us Thu, 29 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 07 Oct 2010 10:35:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52656 A solitary duty-paid clearance, supported by a mark treated as identification and not a brand name, did not constitute an exercise of option under the first proviso to para 4 of Notification No. 1/93-C.E. because no written option was filed and the evidence suggested a clerical error rather than a deemed election. The demand on that basis was therefore not sustainable. The extended period of limitation also failed, as the show cause notice was issued beyond the normal period and the record did not establish deliberate suppression or misdeclaration. In the absence of substantiating material, the demand was barred by limitation and the penalty could not survive. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 29 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52656